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.
Sorry, any climate study coming from any British University is beyond suspect.
The temperature reconstructions were derived using data from three million-year-old sediments on the ocean floor.”
****
LOL
These guys can’t begin to predict using data 3 years old much less 3 million year old whale dung. Wonder what kind of assumptions and tweaks they made to this latest model to arrive at this apocalyptic conclusion?
THese guys are in overdrive now and are gonna try to overwhelm us with data from various sources predicting the end of civilization. The gig is up.
To paraphrase Will Rogers (or was it Mark Twain?), “There are lies, damned lies, and then there are studies reported in Nature Geoscience.”
How did we ever survive before we paid these fortune tellers to sudy this?
1. Running out of money and/or starving to death.
2. No money to pay for gas, water, heat or electricity, living in a cold dark house and freezing to death.
3. Losing my freedom to the government or a foreign takeover. Islamofascist nukes going off in American cities.
4. The country going socialist or communist and becoming a total fascist police state with no rights or freedoms.
5. Being robbed, assaulted or murdered in my home or community.
6. Running out of guns and ammo.
7. Computer or Internet connection breakdown.
8. Disease or accidental health crisis (personal, not societal). Pain and suffering. Dismemberment, amputations, Alzheimer's disease, pooping in my pants, wetting myself.
9. Burning to death. Falling off a tall building.
10. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Sanders, et al being reelected again.
11. Running out of a nice red or white wine and cheese. No MAYO or varieties of mustard. Running out of salsa. Running out of birdseed for my fine feathered friends in a harsh winter.
And way, way down at about 9 million, 847 thousand, etc.:
“global warming”, “the environment”, CO2, “peak oil”, wind energy, solar energy, polar bears, wolves, pup fish, endangered species, etc.
Plus, anything about the welfare or “problems” or crises of Madonna, Britney Spears, Tiger Woods, any Hollywood “celebrity”, any “main stream media” “journalist”, college professors, Black House gate crashers, etc., etc., etc.
I'm sure you can all add to the list.
"The kids in Bristol are sharp as a pistol"
A whistleblower at a secret lyrics site leaked this to me.
It's really somethin' when that joint is jumpin'.
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.IOW, the fact that the dirty bastards in IPCC lied about everything non-stop for years on end turns out to not matter. Bunch of bull! Thanks hennie pennie for the ping, and thanks decimon for the topic.
![]() |
||
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
I’m so glad I don’t fall for every “scientific” explanation that hits the airways. I’d be dead from worry, by now.
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks decimon and hennie pennie....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.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
When they open thier mouths to enlighten us with thier intellegence, just like zero and his clown posse, all we hear is Charlie Browns teacher, wha, wha, wha wha wha....
Once they have produced their Raw Data, their " Value Added Data", their mathematical algorithims and every piece of computer code that was written to arrive at this conclusion this report will be worthy of more than a moment of our attention. In the abscence of the information above this report is worthless.
Oops, my bad - but shouldn’t that be then “hot as a pistol.”
Absolute morons.. Carbon =life.
Without carbon earth would be as dead and lifeless as the moon.
At this point I think we have to worry about the accuracy of even raw data, if it was ever in the sole possession of global warming zealots.
This is what makes it so difficult to refute people who have fallen into the correlation equals causation fallacy. Of course CO2 levels were higher when temperature levels were higher before the Quaternary. Higher temps lead to higher CO2. But there is no evidence aside from flawed computer models that the reverse is true.
I no longer believe that ANY of the “Climate Scientists” can do honest science.
EVERYTHING right now that they are investigating NEEDS to be brought to a complete halt. The HADCRUt and GISS records MUST be looked at very carefully by honest auditors, even if that takes 5 years; the other proxy records, such as Briffa’s must suffer the same scrutiny, and then they can recalibrate all their work.
I am starting to worry that the phrase "honest science" is simply an oxymoron.
I'm unsure how your recommendations could be enforced without putting most climatologists in jail?
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.