Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[Old Rocks]

SUMMIT COUNTY — Glaciers in the Himalaya are not shrinking as fast as once predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some glaciers in the Karakoram Range have grown slightly in the past decade, according to a team of European researchers who recently completed one of the most detailed surveys of the region to-date.

Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as previously predicted, at least for now « Summit County Citizens Voice

Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as previously predicted, at least for now « Summit County Citizens Voice

But there are still valid concerns about variability that could leave some valleys dry, at least on a seasonal basis.

“The majority of the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking, but much less rapidly than predicted earlier,” said Tobias Bolch, of the University of Zurich and Dresden University of Technology.

Bolch said the earlier predictions were based on erroneous mapping. The newest study, published in Science, is based on satellite data showing that glaciers in the Himalayas and Karakoram cover a total area of about 40,800 square kilometers — about twenty times larger than all glaciers of the European Alps put together,but as much as twenty percent smaller than was previously assumed.

Along with satellite data, the researchers added all existing measurements of length, area and volume changes and mass budgets into their calculations.

Some of the measurement series on length changes date back to 1840, and measurements of glacier mass budget that instantaneously reflect the climate signal are rare. Overall, the researchers recorded average length decreases of 15 to 20 metres and area decreases of 0.1 to 0.6 percent per year in recent decades, as well as an average 40 centimeter lowering of glacier surfaces.

“The detected length changes and area and volume losses correspond to the global average,” Bolch said.

For the regions in the northwestern Himalayas and especially in the Karakoram Range, the researchers noted very heterogeneous behavior in the glaciers. Many of them are dynamically unstable and prone to surges that largely occur independently of climatic conditions.

For the last decade on average, even a slight volume increase was detected. Based on their analyses, the researchers assume that glacier shrinkage will not have a major impact on the water drainage of large rivers like the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra in the coming decades.

Bolch and his colleagues also said they see a very serious threat to the local population in newly formed or rapidly growing glacial lakes. The deluge of water and debris from potential outbursts of these lakes could have devastating consequences for low-lying regions. According to the scientists, increased efforts are urgently needed to monitor the lakes as well as changes in the glaciers and the climate in the Himalayas.

 

[Old Rocks]

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

Why do you continue to blast Al Gore?

Because that's what your POLITICAL PARTY has taught you to do!!!
They learned pretty fast it's easier than trying to refute with SCIENCE!

Speaking of science, the estimates out there predict sea levels rising several METERS within the next ten years at the current rate of thawing. That is not even considering the "what ifs" of ALL glacial and polar ice melting.

BTW...how much water is locked in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica?

Yes....Antarctica!

Don't try to deny it. More and larger icebergs are breaking off of the Antarctic ice shield every year and being reported in the ocean of lower southern latitudes previously unheard of.

Back to rising sea levels. Since most coastal cities are right at or slightly above sea level even a rise of a few meters would flood them.

Most of Florida would be underwater.

Has nothing to do with party and everything to do with the two sides of Gore.

On one side you have a man who appears to care about the issue.

On the other side you have a man who has profitted massively from the matter while at the same time not practicing what he preaches.


No matter what affilliation he holds any man under such circumstances should have his feet held to the fire.

My understanding is that Gore made his wealth in investing in Google and other high tech stocks shortly after he lost his Presidential bid. From what I have read, he gave most of the money he made from lectures and the movie to others to promote understanding of what the scientists are telling us.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

This is where you lose all credibility. The hole in the Ozone has repaired itself.

Nature always repair itself. Two years after the eruption of |Krakatoa, only Al Gore and his acolytes would argue otherwise. Same thing about Mt. St. Helens.

Nature only has problems when self-promoting idiots try to interfere.

Lordy, lordy. Have you never heard of extinction periods? Nature did repair itself. After a few million years and with a completely new suite of critters.

The K-T Extinction is an extreme example of an extinction period created by the very rapid accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. A point here, the rapidity of todays accumulation is greater than that before the K-T extinction.

 

[IanC]

Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate.

All else is just human speculation.

I see. The worldwide deglaciation that we are seeing is just the result of natural processes and has nothing to do with a CO2 level that has gone from 280 ppm to 390+ ppm. Yet the increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm was the differance between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago.

you're half right.

who told you the obviously wrong 180 to 280 increase made the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago? does that even make sense?

 

[skookerasbil]

Just more evidence here why the green movement has hit a brick wall in recent years..........far too much uncertainty. But they continue to want to play roulette with the peoples money.........based upon a guess.

Thankfully.............its not happening, though the k00ks will continue to embrace the fantasy.

 

[bobgnote]

you're half right.

who told you the obviously wrong 180 to 280 increase made the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago? does that even make sense?

You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers? You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Do you think humans got busier than you did, and you didn't find out, or you ignored it all?

You are aware the human variables include not only increased emissions, but also defoliation? Since you can smell your own farts, you are aware of the presence of your own shit, in methane, since the methane is odorless? You are aware of the methane, now accelerating the warming, while the CO2 accelerates acidification? Go Crappy, go Crappy!

 

[wirebender]

You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers? You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Industrial age glaciers? What the hell are you talking about.

Tell you what goober, explain the earth decending into a hard ice age during the ordovician age with atmospheric CO2 somewhere between 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm.

And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind.

The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers? You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Industrial age glaciers? What the hell are you talking about.

Tell you what goober, explain the earth decending into a hard ice age during the ordovician age with atmospheric CO2 somewhere between 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm.

And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind.

The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

You're mostly right, but how do you explain the last 800,000 years never going above 300 ppm, but "somehow" within the past 100 years we're nearly 400ppm. No reason for it as we're NOT entering a major ice age or innerglacial period. All of the data from the ice cores show this pattern matching up to the glacial cycles, but somehow a weak tiny cooling period(little ice age) does this. Doesn't make sense.

That little ice age caused closer to 5 ppm charge...Why is it going up at 2 ppm per year? Can we agree that it's human driven? Even through it may cause NO effect on the climate. For a second lets say co2 is no harm and is in fact good...Could we admit that humans are putting it into the atmosphere?

 

[bobgnote]

You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers? You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Industrial age glaciers? What the hell are you talking about.

Tell you what goober, explain the earth decending into a hard ice age during the ordovician age with atmospheric CO2 somewhere between 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm.

And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind.

The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

Wiener, you learned about cold water CO2 affinity from reading about ten of my posts, including the OP of the thread I wrote, so now you finally mention this. I guess the part where I wrote how you are like every other queer, who used to try to get a dose of HIV all the way to AIDS must have got every bit of your gay attention, but since you are also brain-dead, you forgot I know you are a neo-con queer, trying to rant, like a gay person.

You really are a fucktard, no doubt. Anything you say, Wiener. Hmm. I can see they don't let you outside very often.

The Ordovician Ice Age happened, when the first plants dropped CO2 levels, after the CO2 level was really high, according to modern studies:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21417-first-land-plants-plunged-earth-into-ice-age.html

"Never underestimate moss. When the simple plants first arrived on land, almost half a billion years ago, they triggered both an ice age and a mass extinction of ocean life.

The first land plants appeared around 470 million years ago, during the Ordovician period, when life was diversifying rapidly. They were non-vascular plants, like mosses and liverworts, that didn't have deep roots.

About 35 million years later, ice sheets briefly covered much of the planet and a mass extinction ensued. Carbon dioxide levels probably fell sharply just before the ice arrived – but nobody knew why.

Tim Lenton of the University of Exeter, UK, and colleagues think the mosses and liverworts are to blame."

High-carbon ice age mystery solved - environment - 08 March 2010 - New Scientist

Attention Wienerbitch: "How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It's a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO2 levels were not that high after all.

The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO2 levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO2 concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.

Lee Kump of Pennsylvania State University in University Park says earlier studies missed the dip because they calculated levels at 10-million-year intervals and the ice age lasted only half a million years.

The dip, he says, was triggered by a burst of volcanic activity that deposited new silicate rocks. These draw CO2 out of the air as they erode. As the ice spread, however, it gradually covered the silicate rocks, slowing the erosion and so allowing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere once more. This eventually would have warmed the atmosphere enough to end the ice age, says Kump."

Will that be all, fucktard, wingpunks, and hostages?

 

[Old Rocks]

You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers? You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Industrial age glaciers? What the hell are you talking about.

Tell you what goober, explain the earth decending into a hard ice age during the ordovician age with atmospheric CO2 somewhere between 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm.

And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind.

The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

First land plants plunged Earth into ice age - environment - 01 February 2012 - New Scientist

When Lenton added this effect of non-vascular plants to a climate model of the Ordovician, the CO2 dropped from about 22 times modern levels to just eight times modern levels. That was enough to trigger an ice age in the model of Ordovician Earth.


As for your other nonsense, the Milankovic Cycles warmed the southern ocean, which caused the release of CO2 and created the warmth that we enjoy today. Without the CO2, the change would not have been great enough to melt the continental glaciers. In fact, there have been a couple of times in the geologic history of the earth that the CO2 level has dropped to the point that the oceans froze nearly to the equator.

 

[skookerasbil]

Once again...........Wirebender schooling the environmental radicals.


Shit this guy is good..............

 

[skookerasbil]

You are aware, how ice receded from the several ice ages, to leave industrial age glaciers? You are aware, how the CO2 moved, and the oceanic carbonic acid moved, since billions of tons of CO2 somehow wound up in the atmosphere, since the 19th Century?

Industrial age glaciers? What the hell are you talking about.

Tell you what goober, explain the earth decending into a hard ice age during the ordovician age with atmospheric CO2 somewhere between 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm.

And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind.

The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

Wiener, you learned about cold water CO2 affinity from reading about ten of my posts, including the OP of the thread I wrote, so now you finally mention this. I guess the part where I wrote how you are like every other queer, who used to try to get a dose of HIV all the way to AIDS must have got every bit of your gay attention, but since you are also brain-dead, you forgot I know you are a neo-con queer, trying to rant, like a gay person.

You really are a fucktard, no doubt. Anything you say, Wiener. Hmm. I can see they don't let you outside very often.

The Ordovician Ice Age happened, when the first plants dropped CO2 levels, after the CO2 level was really high, according to modern studies:

First land plants plunged Earth into ice age - environment - 01 February 2012 - New Scientist

"Never underestimate moss. When the simple plants first arrived on land, almost half a billion years ago, they triggered both an ice age and a mass extinction of ocean life.

The first land plants appeared around 470 million years ago, during the Ordovician period, when life was diversifying rapidly. They were non-vascular plants, like mosses and liverworts, that didn't have deep roots.

About 35 million years later, ice sheets briefly covered much of the planet and a mass extinction ensued. Carbon dioxide levels probably fell sharply just before the ice arrived – but nobody knew why.

Tim Lenton of the University of Exeter, UK, and colleagues think the mosses and liverworts are to blame."

High-carbon ice age mystery solved - environment - 08 March 2010 - New Scientist

Attention Wienerbitch: "How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It's a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO2 levels were not that high after all.

The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO2 levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO2 concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.

Lee Kump of Pennsylvania State University in University Park says earlier studies missed the dip because they calculated levels at 10-million-year intervals and the ice age lasted only half a million years.

The dip, he says, was triggered by a burst of volcanic activity that deposited new silicate rocks. These draw CO2 out of the air as they erode. As the ice spread, however, it gradually covered the silicate rocks, slowing the erosion and so allowing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere once more. This eventually would have warmed the atmosphere enough to end the ice age, says Kump."

Will that be all, fucktard, wingpunks, and hostages?

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh..........by the way Bob-0............all this science shit you keep babbling about...............


Nobody cares........................but dont take my word for it!!!!

LMAO.......in 2010, global warming was 21st on the list. Now? Doesnt even make the list!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[bobgnote]

Suckassbil doesn't care. He just posts spam. OK, Suckassbil. The rest of the tea-room rangers ran off, so here you are, covering for Wienerbitch, who went and posted a report about the acid-related oyster die-off, without realizing it was the same event I posted as an OP at a thread, only I put up the current report, without the ambiguity.

OK, Suckassbil, the rest of the retards have their special homework, so here you are. What do you got?

 

[RollingThunder]

Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate. All else is just human speculation.

I see. The worldwide de-glaciation that we are seeing is just the result of natural processes and has nothing to do with a CO2 level that has gone from 280 ppm to 390+ ppm. Yet the increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm was the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago.

you're half right.

who told you the obviously wrong 180 to 280 increase made the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago? does that even make sense?

...And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind. The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

Old Rocks posts the facts and the denier cult retards spew clueless nonsense and then call others 'clueless'. LOL.

CO2 'drove end to last ice age'
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent
BBC News
4 April 2012
(excerpts)

A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The finding is based on a very broad range of data, including even the shells of ancient tiny ocean animals. A paper describing the research appears in this week's edition of Nature. "At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260; and today we're at 392," explained lead author Dr Jeremy Shakun. "So, in the last 100 years we've gone up about 100 ppm - about the same as at the end of the last ice age, which I think puts it into perspective because it's not a small amount. Rising CO2 at the end of the ice age had a huge effect on global climate." The study covers the period in Earth history from roughly 20,000 to 10,000 years ago. This was the time when the planet was emerging from its last deep chill, when the great ice sheets known to cover parts of the Northern Hemisphere were in retreat.

The key result from the new study is that it shows the carbon dioxide rise during this major transition ran slightly ahead of increases in global temperature. This runs contrary to the record obtained solely from the analysis of Antarctic ice cores which had indicated the opposite - that temperature elevation in the southern polar region actually preceded (or at least ran concurrent to) the climb in CO2. This observation has frequently been used by some people who are sceptical of global warming to challenge its scientific underpinnings; to claim that the warming link between the atmospheric gas and global temperature is grossly overstated. But Dr Shakun and colleagues argue that the Antarctic temperature record is just that - a record of what was happening only on the White Continent. By contrast, their new climate history encompasses data from all around the world to provide a much fuller picture of what was happening on a global scale. This data incorporates additional information contained in ices drilled from Greenland, and in sediments drilled from the ocean floor and from continental lakes. "Our global temperature looks a lot like the pattern of rising CO2 at the end of the ice age, but the interesting part in particular is that unlike with these Antarctic ice core records, the temperature lags a bit behind the CO2," said Dr Shakun, who conducted much of the research at Oregon State University but who is now affiliated to Harvard and Columbia universities. "You put these two points together - the correlation of global temperature and CO2, and the fact that temperature lags behind the CO2 - and it really leaves you thinking that CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the ice age," he told BBC News.

BBC © 2012

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[IanC]

I see. The worldwide de-glaciation that we are seeing is just the result of natural processes and has nothing to do with a CO2 level that has gone from 280 ppm to 390+ ppm. Yet the increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm was the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago.

you're half right.

who told you the obviously wrong 180 to 280 increase made the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago? does that even make sense?

...And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind. The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

Old Rocks posts the facts and the denier cult retards spew clueless nonsense and then call others 'clueless'. LOL.

CO2 'drove end to last ice age'
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent
BBC News
4 April 2012
(excerpts)

A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The finding is based on a very broad range of data, including even the shells of ancient tiny ocean animals. A paper describing the research appears in this week's edition of Nature. "At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260; and today we're at 392," explained lead author Dr Jeremy Shakun. "So, in the last 100 years we've gone up about 100 ppm - about the same as at the end of the last ice age, which I think puts it into perspective because it's not a small amount. Rising CO2 at the end of the ice age had a huge effect on global climate." The study covers the period in Earth history from roughly 20,000 to 10,000 years ago. This was the time when the planet was emerging from its last deep chill, when the great ice sheets known to cover parts of the Northern Hemisphere were in retreat.

The key result from the new study is that it shows the carbon dioxide rise during this major transition ran slightly ahead of increases in global temperature. This runs contrary to the record obtained solely from the analysis of Antarctic ice cores which had indicated the opposite - that temperature elevation in the southern polar region actually preceded (or at least ran concurrent to) the climb in CO2. This observation has frequently been used by some people who are sceptical of global warming to challenge its scientific underpinnings; to claim that the warming link between the atmospheric gas and global temperature is grossly overstated. But Dr Shakun and colleagues argue that the Antarctic temperature record is just that - a record of what was happening only on the White Continent. By contrast, their new climate history encompasses data from all around the world to provide a much fuller picture of what was happening on a global scale. This data incorporates additional information contained in ices drilled from Greenland, and in sediments drilled from the ocean floor and from continental lakes. "Our global temperature looks a lot like the pattern of rising CO2 at the end of the ice age, but the interesting part in particular is that unlike with these Antarctic ice core records, the temperature lags a bit behind the CO2," said Dr Shakun, who conducted much of the research at Oregon State University but who is now affiliated to Harvard and Columbia universities. "You put these two points together - the correlation of global temperature and CO2, and the fact that temperature lags behind the CO2 - and it really leaves you thinking that CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the ice age," he told BBC News.

BBC © 2012

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

I have noticed that you increase the size of the font in proportion to how flawed your citation is.

if you think so highly of Shakun12 why didnt you have anything to say on the thread specifically about it?

 

[wirebender]

You're mostly right, but how do you explain the last 800,000 years never going above 300 ppm, but "somehow" within the past 100 years we're nearly 400ppm. No reason for it as we're NOT entering a major ice age or innerglacial period. All of the data from the ice cores show this pattern matching up to the glacial cycles, but somehow a weak tiny cooling period(little ice age) does this. Doesn't make sense.

I am entirely right and what is disturbing is the fact that I think you know that I am entirely right. The fact that you asked why it has not gone above 300 ppm in the past 800K years tells me that you probably know that I am right and why. We have been in, and coming out of an ice age for the past 800K years Matthew. You know as well as I do that if you go back much more than 800K years to a point where the climate was still decending into the ice age, that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations quickly go above 300ppm, and 400ppm, and 500ppm, and 600ppm.

I am pretty sure that you know that the earth started decending into the present ice age with atmospheric CO2 concentrations at, or slightly above 1000ppm.

little ice age caused closer to 5 ppm charge...Why is it going up at 2 ppm per year?

Why? Because warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. The little ice age didn't do much in the way of cooling the oceans. It didn't last long enough.

Can we agree that it's human driven?

No, I don't think we can. The evidence is there to tell us that it isn't human driven. Go back to the beginning of the present ice age and atmospheric CO2 levels were at, or above 1000ppm. That being right there in front of our faces, upon what hard evidence do you base the paltry increase we have seen in our lifetimes on the activities of man? Think about it Matthew, the entire CO2 output of man isn't even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry.

Could we admit that humans are putting it into the atmosphere?

We can agree that humans are putting some small bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, but as I said, we don't even make enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year and more importantly, we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age and will be for a verrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyy long time to come. We know that the atmospheric CO2 was at least 1000ppm upon entering the present ice age and there is no reason to suspect that when we finally get out of it, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 should not be at least that.

 

[RollingThunder]

you're half right.

who told you the obviously wrong 180 to 280 increase made the difference between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago? does that even make sense?

...And are you not aware that warm ocean water doesn't hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the earth began warming out of the ice age in which we currently reside, the oceans began outgassing CO2. You really are clueless aren't you. It is as if you have read various bits of propaganda, not understood a lick of it and simply repeat it as it crosses your mind. The fact that warm water holds less CO2 than cool water is the explanation for the fact that ice cores show us that increases in atmospheric CO2 lag warming by several centuries. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

Old Rocks posts the facts and the denier cult retards spew clueless nonsense and then call others 'clueless'. LOL.

CO2 'drove end to last ice age'
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent
BBC News
4 April 2012
(excerpts)

A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The finding is based on a very broad range of data, including even the shells of ancient tiny ocean animals. A paper describing the research appears in this week's edition of Nature. "At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260; and today we're at 392," explained lead author Dr Jeremy Shakun. "So, in the last 100 years we've gone up about 100 ppm - about the same as at the end of the last ice age, which I think puts it into perspective because it's not a small amount. Rising CO2 at the end of the ice age had a huge effect on global climate." The study covers the period in Earth history from roughly 20,000 to 10,000 years ago. This was the time when the planet was emerging from its last deep chill, when the great ice sheets known to cover parts of the Northern Hemisphere were in retreat.

The key result from the new study is that it shows the carbon dioxide rise during this major transition ran slightly ahead of increases in global temperature. This runs contrary to the record obtained solely from the analysis of Antarctic ice cores which had indicated the opposite - that temperature elevation in the southern polar region actually preceded (or at least ran concurrent to) the climb in CO2. This observation has frequently been used by some people who are sceptical of global warming to challenge its scientific underpinnings; to claim that the warming link between the atmospheric gas and global temperature is grossly overstated. But Dr Shakun and colleagues argue that the Antarctic temperature record is just that - a record of what was happening only on the White Continent. By contrast, their new climate history encompasses data from all around the world to provide a much fuller picture of what was happening on a global scale. This data incorporates additional information contained in ices drilled from Greenland, and in sediments drilled from the ocean floor and from continental lakes. "Our global temperature looks a lot like the pattern of rising CO2 at the end of the ice age, but the interesting part in particular is that unlike with these Antarctic ice core records, the temperature lags a bit behind the CO2," said Dr Shakun, who conducted much of the research at Oregon State University but who is now affiliated to Harvard and Columbia universities. "You put these two points together - the correlation of global temperature and CO2, and the fact that temperature lags behind the CO2 - and it really leaves you thinking that CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the ice age," he told BBC News.

BBC © 2012

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

I have noticed that you increase the size of the font in proportion to how flawed your citation is.

if you think so highly of Shakun12 why didnt you have anything to say on the thread specifically about it?

I have noticed that you increase the amount of bullcrap you spew in proportion to how solid the evidence is against your denier cult lies and pseudo-science.

If you think there is a problem with Dr. Shakun's research results, why don't you have anything specific to say about it, wiredwrong?

Oh right, I forgot, it's because you're a clueless brainwashed retard with delusions of scientific competence but no actual knowledge or understanding of science.