Posted on 12/06/2009 11:42:52 AM PST by decimon
The Earth's temperature may be 30-50 percent more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new study published in Nature Geoscience this week
In the long term, the Earth's temperature may be 30-50% more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new study published in Nature Geoscience this week.
The results show that components of the Earth's climate system that vary over long timescales – such as land-ice and vegetation – have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but these factors are often neglected in current climate models.
Dan Lunt, from the University of Bristol, and colleagues compared results from a global climate model to temperature reconstructions of the Earth's environment three million years ago when global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively high. The temperature reconstructions were derived using data from three million-year-old sediments on the ocean floor.
Lunt said, "We found that, given the concentrations of carbon dioxide prevailing three million years ago, the model originally predicted a significantly smaller temperature increase than that indicated by the reconstructions. This led us to review what was missing from the model."
The authors demonstrate that the increased temperatures indicated by the reconstructions can be explained if factors that vary over long timescales, such as land-ice and vegetation, are included in the model. This is primarily because changes in vegetation and ice lead to more sunlight being absorbed, which in turn increases warming.
Including these long-term processes in the model resulted in an increased temperature response of the Earth to carbon dioxide, indicating that the Earth's temperature is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than previously recognised. Climate models used by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change often do not fully include these long-term processes, thus these models do not entirely represent the sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to carbon dioxide.
Alan Haywood, a co-author on the study from the University of Leeds, said "If we want to avoid dangerous climate change, this high sensitivity of the Earth to carbon dioxide should be taken into account when defining targets for the long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations".
Lunt added: "This study has shown that studying past climates can provide important insights into how the Earth might change in the future."
###
Notes to Editors
A high resolution version of the image can be downloaded from here: https://www.bris.ac.uk/fluff/u/inclel/rpj2a57H_ZzLx_B_WoXnVgEL/
Image caption: The temperature response of the Earth (in degrees C) to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels (280 parts per million by volume) to higher levels (400 parts per million by volume).
(a) shows predicted global temperatures when processes that adjust on relatively short-term timescales (for example sea-ice, clouds, and water vapour) are included in the model
(b) includes additional long-tem processes that adjust on relatively long timescales (vegetation and land-ice).
This research was funded by the Research Council UK and the British Antarctic Survey.
The paper: Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data by Daniel J. Lunt, Alan M. Haywood, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ulrich Salzmann, Paul J. Valdes and Harry J. Dowsett. Published online in Nature Geoscience on 6 December 2009.
The new science...It's up to us to prove his synopsis without backing to be wrong.
Ditto. A model is not science. It is a computer game.
Government grants are going to get harder and harder to obtain. Desperation is setting in. If you want a grant, you better be preaching what the ‘RAT politicians want to hear.
But it probably isn't. In fact, I'll bet money that the physics of CO2 haven't changed in the last 100, 1000, or 1,000,000 years.
The shrill screach of the idiot Warmists is becomming deafening as we encircle them with their own noose...
Or pistol. But they still can do the Bristol Stomp.
One might think the article below adds credence to the warmist claims. But consider this: This guy is a warmist, and his study shows that the warmist models are wildly off. If they didn’t get them right before, what makes anyone think they’re right this time? They are literally making this stuff up as they go along, and every time there is an opportunity to validate the models, they’re wrong.
But of course. Everything is a crisis.
Speed is a necessity towards the solution.
More fraud.
What is up? Al Gore said the earth had a fever? he never mentioned the earth being hypersensitive to CO2, is this in the health care bill?
Given that all of the Global Circulation Models (GCM) have consistently failed to predict changes in the Earth's climate, overestimating the rise in temperatures in every instance; I find this assertion a little hard to swallow.
The lies are rising in direct proportion to their exposure.
The cure for the compulsive fraud of the fraudsters is the liar habit of the lies that bit them. They just can’t get enough of fraud; they’ve got to have more.
But only when using the "value added" "enhanced" temperature data trend...
You would think these people would be embarrassed now that the cat is out of the bag. Couldn't they stop the story?
Those silly Warmers!
All these articles were in the works before climategate, therefore any peer review process was biased in the AGW direction, by explicit exclusion of any skeptical point of view. That should be a disclaimer attached to any such publication like Roger Maris’ asterisk, and with far greater reason.
Oh!. Pick Me!!! I know: Your intelligence and credibility.
Dear God! This means we only have three years to live. Quick, raise our taxes, please, before it’s too late.
CARBON.....ergo, CARBON CREDITS......CREDITS = SALE BY GORE = ASSLOAD OF MONEY IN BANK ACCOUNT...... = MORE CHEEBURGERS FOR FATASS GORE.
Yes. When taxes rise above the projected see level rise then all will be well.
Don’t trust any new studies released within 6 months of Copenhagen!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.