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

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,793
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
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:
 
Good post. I put this up as comment, but it belongs on its own thread.
 
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
 
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

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.
 
2uegqhy.jpg
 
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!"
 
"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.
What did you think they were gong to find?

"Nope, nothings happening, nothing to worry about".
 
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 . . .
 
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.
 
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!"
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.
 
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!"


Well, it's true that the continents were different 65 million years ago that would of made the ocean currents and wind pattern different. 1#Central America hadn't closed, 2# India was moving north into Asia causing "weathering" that would of sucked up the co2. Seems easy to accept that the climate system would of been different...What's so hard to understand? The area between 20 north and 20 south has a "energy" surplus, so on a planet that has its continents closer to the equator would of ment less ice sheets(less energy being reflected back into space) and more energy staying within the climate system.

Totally different climate regime. Now I am not talking directly about the effects of co2, but we should agree that a totally different climate regime should come from such. :eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
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!"
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.

Drink some more Kool Aid dumbass, all of that shit has been debunked numerous times.
 
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!"


Well, it's true that the continents were different 65 million years ago that would of made the ocean currents and wind pattern different. 1#Central America hadn't closed, 2# India was moving north into Asia causing "weathering" that would of sucked up the co2. Seems easy to accept that the climate system would of been different...What's so hard to understand? The area between 20 north and 20 south has a "energy" surplus, so on a planet that has its continents closer to the equator would of ment less ice sheets(less energy being reflected back into space) and more energy staying within the climate system.

Totally different climate regime. Now I am not talking directly about the effects of co2, but we should agree that a totally different climate regime should come from such. :eusa_whistle:

While the climate and continents are different, the response to CO2, and water vapor, and the Oceanic CO2 sink is not. The point is that even if you convinced me that the earth IS warming, you still cannot prove that industry is the cause. CO2s have historically been higher even when there was no industry.

While Global Warming may not be a scam, AGW is certainly a scam.
 
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

All "real scientists" write exactly what CrusaderFrank tells them to.
 
"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.
What did you think they were gong to find?

"Nope, nothings happening, nothing to worry about".

Why highlight "may"? Don't understand what it means? It indicates permission. It doesn't mean "maybe".
 
Debunk this, asshole:

Drink some more Kool Aid dumbass, all of that shit has been debunked numerous times.

Link to some PussyFart website, if you are such a brilliant retard. Let's review CrosstardFuckbitch's rants, to see if he is any smarter, for a tardy:

I'm modern CO2! I'm very sensitive!

Our modern CO2 is just different. It just is

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4534-400000yearslarge1.gif


As we can clearly see from the awesome 430,000-year-graph Fatass the skeptic loaded, CO2 is 'just different,' these days, which are about the final 200 years, on the graph, represented by the red line at the right side, which shoots straight up, for a reason: Humans have been egregiously interfering with natural processes, in that time. Humans have been emitting GHGs and defoliating, simultaneously, during the industrial age.

CO2 normally flattens out, at the 180 ppm level, to force an upswing, in both CO2 concentration and global temperature, which spikes below this. CO2 normally flattens out, at 280 ppm, while temperature spikes and then gets forced down, to show consistent trends, evident in the last several cycles.

The cycles have been spreading, from less than 80,000 years, to longer cycles, of 120,000 years. When cooling starts, the trend is for a slow drop, lasting most of the cycle. When warming starts, the acceleration is rapid, until the peak is reached. We are supposed to be at a peak, already. But then, the CO2 shot up, and methane is being added, see the AMEG.me website. Warming will certainly resume.

The industrial age of humans is characterized, by a spike, in CO2 emissions, all the way, to 400 ppm, note the red line, plotted at the right side of the graph, which with methane seepage will force runaway global warming and acidification, of waters.

Species are dying, and only an asshole could possibly want to shoot speed, bang ass, and shove his HIV, all the way through full-blown AIDS, to die in an epidemic, or punk around in the way, of AGW theorists. Punks intend to block re-greening, which must occur, or humans join the endangered species, already on the list!

That's right, retards. You could shorten your own life, by fucking with all this. And you can end life, for persons, yet unborn, with your awesome greed. Punks off.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top