Earth climate significantly more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Another day, another 10 studies that support ACC. Here's one that says the earth's climate may well be MORE sensitive to CO2 than current models predict. Which would imply that the models are understating predicted temperature increases.

Somehow, like so many other studies, this one is NOT dependent on the data of the CRU master-conspirators that the circle-jerk thread just can't get enough of. But, naturally, we all know that the scientists who carried out this new study are full of shit because . . . well because we just know.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2358&from=rss_home

The climate may be 30–50 percent more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long term than previously thought, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience yesterday.

Projections over the next hundreds of years of climate conditions, including global temperatures, may need to be adjusted to reflect this higher sensitivity.

“Climate change is affecting water supplies for cities and farms; leading to more severe droughts, hurricanes, and floods; contributing to more intense forest fires; and putting coastal communities at risk,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who is on his way to the global climate change conference convening this week in Copenhagen. “This study and the ongoing work of our USGS scientists will help us continue to build more precise long-term projections and to prepare for the impacts of climate change on our world.”

A team of scientists, led by the University of Bristol and including the U.S. Geological Survey, studied global temperatures 3.3 to 3 million years ago, finding that the averages were significantly higher than expected from the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time.

These underestimates occurred because the long-term sensitivity of the Earth system was not accurately taken into account. In these earlier periods, Earth had more time to adjust to some of the slower impacts of climate change. For example, as the climate warms and ice sheets melt, Earth will absorb more sunlight and continue to warm in the future since less ice is present to reflect the sun.

The U.S. Geological Survey provided the reconstruction of environmental conditions during this timeframe, known as the mid-Pliocene warm period. These data allowed the authors to test the Earth system’s sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

“Earth is a dynamic system and climate models need to incorporate its multiple feedbacks as well as changes on both fast and long timescales,” said Dr. Dan Lunt, who is with the University of Bristol and was the lead author of this article. “This comprehensive outlook allows us to see how sensitive the climate really is to atmospheric carbon dioxide, resulting in more accurate long-term projections.”

“This research also emphasizes the importance of examining the past and acquiring real data to understand Earth’s climate system,” said USGS scientist Harry Dowsett. “Our research on the mid-Pliocene is the most comprehensive global reconstruction for any warm period, and scientists did so by examining fossils to determine sea surface and deepwater ocean temperatures, vegetation, sea ice extent, and other environmental characteristics during that timeframe.”

Global average temperatures during the mid-Pliocene were about 3°C (5.5°F) greater than today and within the range projected for the 21st century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Therefore it may be one of the closest analogs in helping to understand Earth’s current and future conditions.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
They're getting desperate after their buddies found cooking the books..
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Doing a quick google search showed quite a bit about the authors of this article including their involvement with the models used by the CRU.

I am sure this study is equally objective.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Another day, another 10 studies that support ACC. Here's one that says the earth's climate may well be MORE sensitive to CO2 than current models predict. Which would imply that the models are understating predicted temperature increases.

Somehow, like so many other studies, this one is NOT dependent on the data of the CRU master-conspirators that the circle-jerk thread just can't get enough of. But, naturally, we all know that the scientists who carried out this new study are full of shit because . . . well because we just know.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2358&from=rss_home

Did you actually read this or are you just hapdashedly posting the abstract to support an agenda?

How do you know the flawed data sets were not part of this study as well?

The reconstructive aspects of that time period being reliant on determining global temperatures 3.3 to 3 million years ago are certainly more than iffy as we have come to find out with reviews of other studies.

Anyway, before getting further distracted, ice sheet reflectivity is only part of the picture and the study authors caution that relying on only a partial understanding of contributing effects can lead to flaws in projections. For example, attendant increases in cloud cover, stimulation of plant growth, etc. etc. balance out. Another consideration but not the whole picture which is still yet to be figured out. By the authors' own admission.

When you see the IPCC, the University of Bristol and the British Antarctic Survey mentioned you know this one has a great likelihood of having insurmountable data flaws.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Did you actually read this or are you just hapdashedly posting the abstract to support an agenda?

How do you know the flawed data sets were not part of this study as well?

The reconstructive aspects of that time period being reliant on determining global temperatures 3.3 to 3 million years ago are certainly more than iffy as we have come to find out with reviews of other studies.

Anyway, before getting further distracted, ice sheet reflectivity is only part of the picture and the study authors caution that relying on only a partial understanding of contributing effects can lead to flaws in projections. For example, attendant increases in cloud cover, stimulation of plant growth, etc. etc. balance out. Another consideration but not the whole picture which is still yet to be figured out. By the authors' own admission.

When you see the IPCC, the University of Bristol and the British Antarctic Survey mentioned you know this one has a great likelihood of having insurmountable data flaws.

Denier!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll get the stake, Shira, you get the flame!
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Denier!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll get the stake, Shira, you get the flame!

Beware!

The Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici will not yield this time! We will take Washington and Copenhagen as we once took Jerusalem.

It is time to follow the money, pilgrims!
 
Last edited:

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
Did you actually read this or are you just hapdashedly posting the abstract to support an agenda?

How do you know the flawed data sets were not part of this study as well?

The reconstructive aspects of that time period being reliant on determining global temperatures 3.3 to 3 million years ago are certainly more than iffy as we have come to find out with reviews of other studies.

Anyway, before getting further distracted, ice sheet reflectivity is only part of the picture and the study authors caution that relying on only a partial understanding of contributing effects can lead to flaws in projections. For example, attendant increases in cloud cover, stimulation of plant growth, etc. etc. balance out. Another consideration but not the whole picture which is still yet to be figured out. By the authors' own admission.

When you see the IPCC, the University of Bristol and the British Antarctic Survey mentioned you know this one has a great likelihood of having insurmountable data flaws.

See, the repubs and wingnuts say there's nothing to worry about...we know we can trust them , they'd never steer us wrong.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I'll quote a bit of the first sentence in the article.

"The climate may be 30–50 percent more sensitive ..."

It MAY be..... yeah, there's some real crackerjack science going on there.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Doing a quick google search showed quite a bit about the authors of this article including their involvement with the models used by the CRU.

I am sure this study is equally objective.
Excellent refutation of the science.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Did you actually read this or are you just hapdashedly posting the abstract to support an agenda?

How do you know the flawed data sets were not part of this study as well?

The reconstructive aspects of that time period being reliant on determining global temperatures 3.3 to 3 million years ago are certainly more than iffy as we have come to find out with reviews of other studies.

Anyway, before getting further distracted, ice sheet reflectivity is only part of the picture and the study authors caution that relying on only a partial understanding of contributing effects can lead to flaws in projections. For example, attendant increases in cloud cover, stimulation of plant growth, etc. etc. balance out. Another consideration but not the whole picture which is still yet to be figured out. By the authors' own admission.

When you see the IPCC, the University of Bristol and the British Antarctic Survey mentioned you know this one has a great likelihood of having insurmountable data flaws.
Excellent refutation of the science.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I'll quote a bit of the first sentence in the article.

"The climate may be 30–50 percent more sensitive ..."

It MAY be..... yeah, there's some real crackerjack science going on there.
Excellent refutation of the science.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
See, the repubs and wingnuts say there's nothing to worry about...we know we can trust them , they'd never steer us wrong.

When you show the wingnuts science, they respond, "Look, science. Produced by SCIENTISTS! Of COURSE it's nonsense."
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Excellent refutation of the science.

Again, these "scientists" worked on the same climate models exposed in the CRU email leak.

A simple google search tells you all you need to know. The writers of this "study" have lost almost every ounce of credibility they had.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Again, these "scientists" worked on the same climate models exposed in the CRU email leak.

A simple google search tells you all you need to know. The writers of this "study" have lost almost every ounce of credibility they had.
Excellent refutation of the science.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Excellent refutation of the science.

Who gives a fvck about the science? If global warming is real, poor people will be the ones affected, not me. If folks like you have your way and limit CO2, I'll profit on the skewed investment opportunities you'll create via your meddling in the market, as meanwhile the poor will be the primary ones impacted.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Who gives a fvck about the science? If global warming is real, poor people will be the ones affected, not me. If folks like you have your way and limit CO2, I'll profit on the skewed investment opportunities you'll create via your meddling in the market, as meanwhile the poor will be the primary ones impacted.
Good point. You're set either way. Come to think of it, so am I.

Fvck the poor!
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Flying winged monkeys MAY have helped me type this reply. I can't prove it, I don't have the evidence to support it, but they MAY have helped me.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,157
12,605
136
from the end of the article:

"Global average temperatures during the mid-Pliocene were about 3°C (5.5°F) greater than today and within the range projected for the 21st century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Therefore it may be one of the closest analogs in helping to understand Earth’s current and future conditions."
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Good point. You're set either way. Come to think of it, so am I.

Fvck the poor!

At least I'm honest about not giving a shit about the poor, whereas you make it seem like you're their champion.

I'm sure North Korea has a very small carbon footprint, maybe we can use them for your model society of low CO2 emissions; all hail the best-case scenario for those who believe in man-caused global warming:

1207koreaelectricitygrikf0.jpg
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,759
54,781
136
At least I'm honest about not giving a shit about the poor, whereas you make it seem like you're their champion.

I'm sure North Korea has a very small carbon footprint, maybe we can use them for your model society of low CO2 emissions; all hail the best-case scenario for those who believe in man-caused global warming:

Excellent straw man.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Flying winged monkeys MAY have helped me type this reply. I can't prove it, I don't have the evidence to support it, but they MAY have helped me.

And, clearly, scientists use "may" in a study result to imply that the results of the study provide at best extremely weak evidence for the statement or even point strongly in the OPPOSITE direction.

Never, ever does that language construction "may" actually mean, "We have collected evidence that supports the hypothesis that . . . ."

Naturally, for a study to be meaningful, it must use absolutist language: "This study proves incontrovertibly that the earth's climate is 42.5% more sensitive to CO2 than previously believed. This is now settled truth." Anything short of that indicates the the study is rubbish.

Have I got that right?
 

artikk

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2004
4,172
1
71
from what I saw most of the people didn't even try to refute the data or the study and just pointed at the CRU scandal and THAT was their argument? WTF.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
At least I'm honest about not giving a shit about the poor, whereas you make it seem like you're their champion.

I'm sure North Korea has a very small carbon footprint, maybe we can use them for your model society of low CO2 emissions; all hail the best-case scenario for those who believe in man-caused global warming:

1207koreaelectricitygrikf0.jpg

That is an awesome example of a country at peace for having achieved the goals of the Church of AGW in their short lifetimes. And only at the cost of millions of lives and a uniform standard of abject poverty and starvation.