News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Prehistory shows CO2 not the only warming factor 

Prehistory shows CO2 not the only warming factor

15 Jul, 2009 01:55 PM
Basing global warming forecasts on atmospheric carbon alone may deliver predictions that fall well short of the potential for temperatures to rise, a new study of a 55 million year old global warming event suggests.

When a trio of United States scientists examined planetary warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), they found that the globe warmed by 5-9°C over several thousand years, but that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could only explain between 1°C-3.5°C of the warming.

Writing in Nature GeoScience Online on Monday, the authors concluded that in addition to CO2's effect on temperature, other feedback or forcing mechanisms must have contributed the greater portion of the warming effect.

Forecasts of future temperature caused by human-induced global warming only account for greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

The authors say their PETM study highlights the need to consider other factors which may escalate temperatures well beyond the effect modelled under greenhouse gas scenarios.

Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii, James Zachos of the University of California and Gerald Dickens of Rice University, Texas, used carbon isotopes, deep-sea carbonate records and computer modelling to consider carbon’s role in the PETM.

The onset of the event 55 million years ago was marked by a dramatic global increase in temperatures within a few thousand years, and a release of terrestial carbon large enough to acidify the oceans.

It is unclear where the carbon came from, nor could the authors say whether the carbon release forced warming that was then amplified by feedback mechanisms, or whether carbon was released in response to warming and itself amplified the effect.

The paper also made it clear that the world was a different place during the PETM: continents were in different configurations and atmospheric and ocean circulations bore no resemblance to today's.

However, the paper suggests that the release of carbon during the onset of the PETM, and human-caused carbon releases over the past 50 years, may be in a similar order of magnitude.

"The PETM may therefore serve as a case study for the consequences of the carbon dioxide released at present by human activities," the authors said.

"…our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding of the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations.

"This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved. None of the computer models replicate this fact. The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.
Posted by NucEngineer, 15/07/2009 2:06:40 PM
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.

The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Posted by NucEngineer, 15/07/2009 2:08:12 PM
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
Posted by NucEngineer, 15/07/2009 2:09:08 PM
It was obviously the natural emissions from melting permafrost (both land and under the sea) during the PETM that caused the non-linear climate change. Methane and CO2 from melting permafrost are not currently included in climate models, so they are grossly underestimating future warming. By the way, the current acceleration of warming (a 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007) will predictably cause most ecosystems to soon rapidly collapse, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn increase the rate of warming (Leemans & Eickhout 2004). "The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
Posted by dobmanmacleod, 15/07/2009 7:43:26 PM
CO2 is not the only, or even the worst, natural GW gas. Methane is largely ignored because it forms such a small part of the air we breath, only 1.78 ppm, yet it is hugely important in the natural Carbon cycle and is produced whenever any organism de-composes, as is CO2.

The difference is that a tonne of Methane has a very short half life of less than 10 years before it breaks down to form 2.75 tonnes of CO2 plus just over 2 tonnes of water vapour. Because methane is so buoyant in the atmosphere it rises very quickly to the upper Troposphere, some decomposing on the way but most doing so at very high altitude where the GW effects are all maximised.

Methane is usually quoted as having a GW potential of about 23 compared with CO2 over a 100 year period. This is nonsense, over a 20 year period it's effect is about 63 and over it's actual half life it is well over 90.

In order to maintain a steady level of 1.78 ppm the decomposing methane is being continuously replaced and it can be shown that abour 39 ppm of the CO2 at present in the air comes from decomposed methane (from warming tundra peat?).

Rising levels of methane, CO2 and water vapour at altitude are our most worrying problem.

Posted by Gas Man, 16/07/2009 3:18:55 AM
Excellent scientific analysis of this political topic, NucEngineer! Please allow me to simplify it further: GIGO: Garbage in=garbage out. Since, as you stated, the Scientific Method depends on observations, not predictions, the output of these computer models is garbage.

Neither the scientists creating the model nor the computer simulating it were there during this "PETM," they didn't start with "observations." They started with predictions, and ended with more predictions.

Furthermore, to condense what these scientists have just said: "...carbon emissions don't have nearly as big an impact on global warming as we thought." Therefore it must be much worse than we thought." Why are we letting these scientists, who don't follow their own methods, dictate political policies to us?

Posted by jpradar, 16/07/2009 3:20:35 AM
This is nothing new, climate scientist admits that CO2 is not the only factor, but it is the only factor that is out of balance.

This particular issue has already been addressed: www.grist.org/article/it-was-warmer-during-the-holoce ne-climatic-optimum/ Talk to some real climate scientists: www.realclimate.org/

Posted by deloprator20000, 16/07/2009 5:21:19 AM
As a geologist, I recognise that there have been great fluctuations in global temperatures in the geological past, obviously not caused by human activities.

Human beings have been very fortunate to live in a period of climatic stability since the end of the last ice age. But we can change that if we keep going the way we are.

The fact that previous climate changes were not caused by us does not mean that we are incapable of changing the climate.

The risk of changing the climate is enormous. The cost of acting is large, but much less.

Posted by Barney, 16/07/2009 10:46:19 AM
Global warming is a celestial event that occurs when our solar system passes through the plane of the milky way. The coincidental shift in magnetic field creates electrical current in the earth's magnetic core. Heat, volcanoes, rising sea levels, and and torrential storms are all part of the geological recorded history of this cycle.

Global warming occurs regularly every 15,000 years, sometimes mild sometimes severe. Human activity and carbon dioxide may contribute to global warming but cannot stop the traverse of our solar system within our galaxy.

A carbon tax will make jobs in the USA (where I live) less competitive with that of our trading partners. The nation owning the least expensive factors of production has a trade advantage. Those factors are skilled labor, energy, transportation infrastructure, and capital.

US labor is expensive but uneducated. US transportation is a jewel. US taxes are high. Government is squeezing corporations out of the capital markets.

If energy prices increase then jobs must leave the USA.

Posted by Fire and Ice, 16/07/2009 11:53:15 AM
The real facts are finally out, climate change is related to the millenium bug. Recent unscientific modelling proves that natural CO2 causes millenium bugs that interfere with ozone, electricity and all our communication systems.

This double whammy catastrophe has been forecasted by Dodgy Brothers Laboratories using state of the art glass beakers, tubes and bunsen burners. The extensive research that these laboratories have undertaken proves that CO2 has the potential to wipe out humanity.

Dr Dodgey stated that finding the millenium bug in CO2 was quite a surprise and explained a great many things, most of which are now indisptable facts.

Posted by docm, 16/07/2009 7:02:50 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
14 July, 2009
12 July, 2009
POLL
Q: Is Malcolm Turnbull the best person to lead the Federal Opposition?

Yes
(53.3%)

No
(35.3%)

Undecided
(11.5%)

Total Votes: 584
Poll Date: 12 July, 2009
BLOGS
15 July, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...