Today's climate more sensitive to carbon dioxide than in past 12 million years

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Jun 7, 2012.

  1. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,663
    Thanks Received:
    4,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,147
    Today's climate more sensitive to carbon dioxide than in past 12 million years

    June 6, 2012
    Today's climate more sensitive to carbon dioxide than in past 12 million years

    Enlarge

    Core samples were collected at the sites noted in the North Pacific Ocean. Credit: Jonathan LaRiviere/Ocean Data View

    Until now, studies of Earth's climate have documented a strong correlation between global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide; that is, during warm periods, high concentrations of CO2 persist, while colder times correspond to relatively low levels.



    Ads by Google

    Space Studies Degree - Online Degree in Space Studies. Complete Your No Fee Application. - American Public University System - Official Site - 877-755-2787

    However, in this week's issue of the journal Nature, paleoclimate researchers reveal that about 12-5 million years ago climate was decoupled from atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. New evidence of this comes from deep-sea sediment cores dated to the late Miocene period of Earth's history.

    During that time, temperatures across a broad swath of the North Pacific were 9-14 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations remained low--near values prior to the Industrial Revolution.

    The research shows that, in the last five million years, changes in ocean circulation allowed Earth's climate to become more closely coupled to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

    The findings also demonstrate that the climate of modern times more readily responds to changing carbon dioxide levels than it has during the past 12 million years.

    "This work represents an important advance in understanding how Earth's past climate may be used to predict future climate trends," says Jamie Allan, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research.

    The research team, led by Jonathan LaRiviere and Christina Ravelo of the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC), generated the first continuous reconstructions of open-ocean Pacific temperatures during the late Miocene epoch.

    It was a time of nearly ice-free conditions in the Northern Hemisphere and warmer-than-modern conditions across the continents.

    The research relies on evidence of ancient climate preserved in microscopic plankton skeletons--called microfossils--that long-ago sank to the sea-floor and ultimately were buried beneath it in sediments.

    Samples of those sediments were recently brought to the surface in cores drilled into the ocean bottom. The cores were retrieved by marine scientists working aboard the drillship JOIDES Resolution.

    The microfossils, the scientists discovered, contain clues to a time when the Earth's climate system functioned much differently than it does today.

    "It's a surprising finding, given our understanding that climate and carbon dioxide are strongly coupled to each other," LaRiviere says.

    "In the late Miocene, there must have been some other way for the world to be warm. One possibility is that large-scale patterns in ocean circulation, determined by the very different shape of the ocean basins at the time, allowed warm temperatures to persist despite low levels of carbon dioxide."

    The Pacific Ocean in the late Miocene was very warm, and the thermocline, the boundary that separates warmer surface waters from cooler underlying waters, was much deeper than in the present.

    The scientists suggest that this deep thermocline resulted in a distribution of atmospheric water vapor and clouds that could have maintained the warm global climate.

    "The results explain the seeming paradox of the warm--but low greenhouse gas--world of the Miocene," says Candace Major, program director in NSF's Division of Ocean Sciences.
    :eusa_boohoo::eusa_boohoo::eusa_boohoo::oops:
     
  2. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    Good post. I put this up as comment, but it belongs on its own thread.
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,168
    Thanks Received:
    14,903
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,904
    It's AGW-centric thinking. I'd be more interested in what happened to the oceans. It reads to me that CO2 has never been a driver of climate and if the writer were a real scientist and not a member of the AGW Cult, the article would have been completely different. It's like saying The Godfather was all about the fat chick Sonny was fucking
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    It was in Nature Magazine, Cross-fucking-retard! It just seems CO2 is a better indicator of climactic warming trends, than it ever was back in Crosstard Rex days, when you were a pink lizard that bites.

    And then the methane will do its work, it'll be hot, the carbonic acid will fuck up the food chains, and you'll be dead, or you won't go outside. Even lizards don't live forever, tardy.
     
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    [​IMG]
     
  6. PredFan
    Offline

    PredFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    29,190
    Thanks Received:
    4,422
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    In Liberal minds, rent free.
    Ratings:
    +11,620
    Just when I thought I had seen everything, the AGW crowd comes up with something actually new. Smells like the usual bull shit only from a new angle. Perhaps to counter the fact that CO2s have been higher in the past when there was no industry or SUVs.

    "Yeah CO2s were higher before and temperatures were higher before but the environment is so much more sensitive now so it's still the fault of industry. Socialism is the only cure!"
     
  7. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    What did you think they were gong to find?

    "Nope, nothings happening, nothing to worry about".
     
  8. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    It occurs to me in this sack-race of an election, has anybody asked either candidate, what he will do, if the environment and energy both force their way to prominence, despite how the severe retardation in Americans is keeping the environmentalists neatly penned up, voting for the Green Party?

    1. CO2 is 400 ppm, it was 275 at the start of the 19th Century, and 350 ppm is considered maximum safe level;
    2. The CO2 is not only heating the planet, it is acidifying the oceans and other water, so food chains are presently suffering die-offs, and Mass Extinction Event 6 seems likely;
    3. When the Arctic methane all releases, the planet heats up even faster, the shelf ice melts, then islands and coastal cities go under water, or they just eat shit and die, in big, cyclonic storms.

    The wingpunks who buzz and spam the environment and energy threads don't like to respond to this reality, which will force its way into some campaign. Does anyone think, with all this quote in quote in quote, how a differential from Obamney issues may be necessary? Or else . . .
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,465
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,303
    The problem is that the fruitloops here are to stupid to do anything other than the neener-neener left field chant, while real scientists are trying to find what is in store for us.
     
  10. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    You are a really confused pussyfart. The rate of change of CO2 concentration is due, to human emissions and simultaneous defoliation, evident, since the start of the industrial revolution. The heat and CO2 are related, there is more of both, the methane is coming, so we will see more bad heat, and then you go for a swim, if you are too near the coast.

    'Smells like the usual bull shit' since your head is up your asshole. The CO2 makes carbonic acid, which is killing the oceanic food chain. Oysters are dead, the cod aren't coming back, and when the plankton bloom goes, down goes the food chain. Quit huffing car exhaust.
     

Share This Page