Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: CO2 may not warm the planet as much as thought
New Scientist ^ | 11/25/2011 | by Michael Marshall

Posted on 11/25/2011 5:29:44 PM PST by SeekAndFind

The climate may be less sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought – and temperature rises this century could be smaller than expected. That's the surprise result of a new analysis of the last ice age. However, the finding comes from considering just one climate model, and unless it can be replicated using other models, researchers are dubious that it is genuine.

As more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, more heat is trapped and temperatures go up – but by how much? The best estimates say that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, temperatures will rise by 3 °C. This is the "climate sensitivity".

But the 3 °C figure is only an estimate. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the climate sensitivity could be anywhere between 2 and 4.5 °C. That means the temperature rise from a given release of carbon dioxide is still uncertain.

There have been several attempts to pin down the sensitivity. The latest comes from Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues, who took a closer look at the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000 years ago, when the last ice age was at its height.

They used previously published data to put together a detailed global map of surface temperatures. This showed that the planet was, on average, 2.2 °C cooler than today. We already know from ice cores that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at the time were much lower than they are now.

Schmittner plugged the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that existed during the Last Glacial Maximum into a climate model and tried to recreate the global temperature patterns. He found that he had to assume a relatively small climate sensitivity of 2.4 °C if the model was to give the best fit.

(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; co2; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; iceage; minimum; storms; volcanism

1 posted on 11/25/2011 5:29:53 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

All I can add to that headline is: No sh!t Sherlock.


2 posted on 11/25/2011 5:33:21 PM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; rdl6989; bamahead; Nervous Tick; SteamShovel; Tunehead54; golux; tubebender; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

3 posted on 11/25/2011 5:33:29 PM PST by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Thought can warm the planet more than carbon dioxide?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

4 posted on 11/25/2011 5:33:31 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The climate may be less sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought

What is the "WE" stuff?

5 posted on 11/25/2011 5:38:51 PM PST by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Climategate II damage control.


6 posted on 11/25/2011 5:39:38 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

“All I can add to that headline is: No sh!t Sherlock.”

Perfect.....


7 posted on 11/25/2011 5:40:15 PM PST by mike_9958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Water vapor is a larger greenhouse factor than CO2


8 posted on 11/25/2011 5:40:24 PM PST by dennisw (I heard the old man laughing What good is a used up world and how could it be worth having-Sting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The “New Scientist” is a left-leaning eco-friendly publication. For them to admit even a bit that CO2 is not this generation’s chicken-little pollutant shows progress in having the truth reach a closed-mind audience. At some point they will have to conclude that they have bet on the wrong science and will have to admit that AGW skeptics were correct.


9 posted on 11/25/2011 5:41:10 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“However, the finding comes from considering just one climate model, and unless it can be replicated using other models, researchers are dubious that it is genuine.”

Right ... running a computer model is the same as doing an experiment in the real world. Models can't be tweaked. Models are infallible — provided that two or more models produce the same answer. < /delusional warmist ravings

10 posted on 11/25/2011 5:41:22 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

“Thought can warm the planet more than carbon dioxide?”

Yes, but scientists still find there is very little warming. Hmmm....


11 posted on 11/25/2011 5:42:16 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Are you telling me this was a lie?


12 posted on 11/25/2011 5:43:07 PM PST by South40 (Just say NO to amnesty. Say NO to Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
I'm off to light the charcoal grill and open a chilled carbonated beer from my 1970's frig right now.

Choke on that Algore!

TREE HUG2

13 posted on 11/25/2011 5:43:28 PM PST by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You don’t need a stupid study.

There is virtually NO CO2 in the atmosphere.


14 posted on 11/25/2011 5:45:08 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault


Lone Ranger: The climate may be less sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought.

Tonto: What you mean "we", delusional paranoid warmist?
15 posted on 11/25/2011 5:46:06 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
At some point they will have to conclude that they have bet on the wrong science and will have to admit that AGW skeptics were correct.

They will never admit that. When the time comes, and they can no longer hold the fort, they will simply stuff the whole issue down the memory hole and, like the mad hatter's teaparty, just move on to the next place where they can create a whole new mess out of nothing.

16 posted on 11/25/2011 5:46:25 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
However, the finding comes from considering just one climate model, and unless it can be replicated using other models, researchers are dubious that it is genuine.

Hell, their computer models can't even predict today's climate, but any model that disagrees with theirs has to be held to an infinitely higher standard.

17 posted on 11/25/2011 5:47:38 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("The very idea of a community organizer is to stir up a mob for some political purpose." Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Oh, these poor boobs. There's a ~60 year cycle, believed to be astronomical in origin, that accounts for nearly all the warming between 1970 and 2000. The increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was triggered by the warming of the Medieval Climate Optimum.
18 posted on 11/25/2011 5:47:47 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Yep. Just as they did with global cooling back in the Seventies...


19 posted on 11/25/2011 5:49:49 PM PST by rlmorel (The Rats won't be satisfied until every industry in the USA is in ruins and ripe for nationalization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
The best estimates say that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, temperatures will rise by 3 °C. This is the "climate sensitivity".

My understanding is that the "climate sensitivity" refers to how much of a positive feedback they are assuming in the system. That is, they assume that adding some CO2 increases the amount of moisture which increases the temperature.

A number of researchers believe that the effect is exactly the opposite, that increasing the CO2 increases moisture which increases clouds, thus decreasing warming, that is, a negative feedback effect. Those researchers say this is much more likely, because we do not see small increases in CO2 causing a rapid acceleration in heating, which is what would happen with a positive feedback system.

It is my understanding that all the models the "climate change" crowd depend on have this positive feedback mechanism built into them. It is the only way they can produce the warming effects that they desire.

I have simplified things a good bit for brevity, but the essence is correct, I believe.

20 posted on 11/25/2011 5:54:07 PM PST by marktwain (In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Schmittner agrees it is too early to draw firm conclusions. Individual climate models all have their own quirks, so he wants to try the experiment with several models to find out if others repeat the result.

If Schmittner wants to keep his job, he better check with the gubmint, and see what "they" want the temps to be.

21 posted on 11/25/2011 6:00:22 PM PST by RobinOfKingston (The instinct toward liberalism is located in the part of the brain called the rectal lobe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Politicians, environmentalists, et al never pay attention to factual evidence.


22 posted on 11/25/2011 6:04:05 PM PST by Jukeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind


23 posted on 11/25/2011 6:29:32 PM PST by Iron Munro (Ben Raines For President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
At some point they will have to conclude that they have bet on the wrong science and will have to admit that AGW skeptics were correct change the subject.

24 posted on 11/25/2011 6:43:24 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
Climategate II damage control.

BINGO

25 posted on 11/25/2011 6:44:26 PM PST by CommieCutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is old news. Many years' old news.

Any presumably educated person conversant with science (chemistry, physics, biology) would be presumptuous to pretend to understand the painfully complex process of worldwide weather and climate based on simple laboratory experiments.

Any self-described "scientist" who would do so, is simply --- well, incompetent.

26 posted on 11/25/2011 6:56:29 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It may not warm the planet as much as they thought... But they still want us to reorder our lives and pay trillions more in taxes. Go figure.


27 posted on 11/25/2011 6:57:52 PM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

DUH.


28 posted on 11/25/2011 7:00:40 PM PST by libbylu (Game On!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; hinckley buzzard

Have to agree that it is much more likely that they will drop it down the memory hole and change the subject than admit they were wrong.

Locally here in NM, what this new release of documents does immediately is give credence to those who say the “global warming” science is far from being settled and should make easier the job of experts testifying in two state regulatory hearings to overturn regulations reducing/capping industrial CO2 emissions. These were rushed to adoption in the waning days of the Richardson administration after the new Republican governor Susana Martinez had been elected. She fired the regulatory board and appointed new members more in line with reality than environmental hand-wringing.


29 posted on 11/25/2011 7:01:22 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The climate may be less sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought

I'm shocked. Shocked.

30 posted on 11/25/2011 7:02:32 PM PST by BAW (Not Romney. No. No. No. No. No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765
It may not warm the planet as much as they thought... But...
31 posted on 11/25/2011 7:03:05 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

So True. I was just using their quote against them, but even that wasn’t true.


32 posted on 11/25/2011 7:09:42 PM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Load up algore and all his climate quacks and ship ‘em to Venus where they can enjoy some real global warming.
33 posted on 11/25/2011 7:16:50 PM PST by JPG (The loons at OWS will soon be at each others throats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Water vapor is a larger greenhouse factor than CO2

Indeed. But now we must stamp out all water vapor! </sarcasm>

Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas.

34 posted on 11/25/2011 7:33:20 PM PST by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

There is virtually NO CO2 in the atmosphere
No, there has to be enough for the plants to breathe in. Beyond that, 392 parts per million (0.0392%) is utterly minuscule.
35 posted on 11/25/2011 8:12:26 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Anyone with any significant level of understanding of quantum mechanics or even just absorption spectra knows that CO2 is a non-factor re climate “change.” Why? Current densities of CO2 absorp all the IR radiation of the frequencies that they can in the first ten or so meters of air. Double the CO2, and all you do is move that down to 5 or so meters, but no more net energy is absorbed.

AGW is complete junk science!


36 posted on 11/25/2011 8:27:49 PM PST by piytar (The Obama Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Models are only as good as the assumptions made when creating them. How about we stick to science where we measure actually occuring things and leave the make believe to philosophers.


37 posted on 11/25/2011 8:41:01 PM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

CO2 is essentially irrelevant to the climate.


38 posted on 11/25/2011 8:43:32 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

New Climate Report Claims Global Warming's Toll on Extreme Weather

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

39 posted on 11/25/2011 9:23:11 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

To visualize what your comment is saying, a green garden pea dropped in an empty 5 gal bucket fairly represents to ratio of CO2 to the entire atmosphere.

Anyways, CO2 is just fertilizer which plants use to produce more oxygen.


40 posted on 11/25/2011 11:24:11 PM PST by burroak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
When the time comes, and they can no longer hold the fort, they will simply stuff the whole issue down the memory hole and, like the mad hatter's teaparty, just move on to the next place where they can create a whole new mess out of nothing.

The memory hole just received a giant plug by the release of the Climategate II e-mails with almost 200,000 more to be decrypted. This is the second "walking back" story I have read this morning so now we know somebody's are getting scared, and I would wager they are mostly politicians.

41 posted on 11/26/2011 3:23:00 AM PST by mazda77 (and I am a Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Have to agree that it is much more likely that they will drop it down the memory hole and change the subject than admit they were wrong.
Puts me in mind of the story of "Operation Bodyguard" - the phantom "army" under disgraced General Patton which "was going to invade directly across the English Channel and strike at Calais." I had known that story for a generation or more, before I read a book which discussed its ramifications in a little more detail. It never occurred to me to realize that that phantom "army" was supposedly of fantastic size - more like a Russian army than anything we had any thoughts of actually mustering. That was why that threat pinned all of the German tanks at Calais. In reality we had no ability to throw so much force at any particular point that we could have established a beachhead against the kind of force the Germans had at Calais.

But the reason "Bodyguard" is relevant to this discussion is the aftermath of the Normandy landing. It was establishment "logic" - call it "settled science" that we were going to launch a huge offensive at Calais. Then we invaded Normandy. Fine, you would think that the whole German high command would say, "Wow, we've been tricked!" - not in English, of course - and dedicate all their resources to opposing the breakout from the Normandy beachhead. Rommel, of course, saw the implication of Normandy instantly - he knew that a successfully established Allied beachhead anywhere on the French coast was a dagger pointed at the heart of the Reich, and vehemently argued for the movement of resources to attack our beachhead as vigorously as possible. But no - the supposed Bodyguard thrust just hadn't happened yet. The Allies didn't announce that Bodyguard was a ruse, and although they couldn't conceal the Normandy landing, the idea of Calais had its own inertia. Once the establishment had committed to Calais, it was hard to speak of anything else.

The fact that Normandy was the real deal just gradually became the reality on the ground, over the course of a month or so. There never came a single moment when everyone announced in unison that the Emperor had no clothes on.


42 posted on 11/26/2011 6:39:40 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

CO2 increases are caused by warming, they are not the cause.


43 posted on 11/26/2011 6:42:21 AM PST by BuffaloJack (Defeat Obama. End Obama's War On Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Now, that is an interesting bit of history!


44 posted on 11/26/2011 2:06:20 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Wasn't it, tho!

I thought it was fascinating when I read it. And I wish I could cite a link, but it was in a book I read about current issues - and I just don't know now even what the author was using that history to illustrate.

45 posted on 11/27/2011 4:14:57 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
No, there has to be enough for the plants to breathe in. Beyond that, 392 parts per million (0.0392%) is utterly minuscule.

Of that, mankind is "supposed" to be responsible for 3%, or 0.0012% of the total amount of CO2.

46 posted on 11/27/2011 5:30:56 AM PST by dirtbiker (Obama: America's first Affirmative Action president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: burroak; All
a green garden pea dropped in an empty 5 gal bucket

How about 100% of the atmosphere visualized in a monetary format...a dollar equals one percent:

Imagine $100.00 in pennies in rows on a large table. That's 10,000 pennies.

Paint four of the pennies green. (CO2 = 4/100ths of a percent)

Using the 4 green pennies, form a layer to trap heat!

Scatter them throughout the "atmosphere"...they can't even see each other.

47 posted on 11/27/2011 6:11:42 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Water vapor is a larger greenhouse factor than CO2

During the summer, humidity is likely to be a much bigger factor affecting temperatures than CO2. During the winter, with cold air being able to hold less moisture, CO2 may be a bigger factor.

The assumption paraded to the public is that increased CO2 would lead to hotter summers, and this is bad. But if the net effect of CO2 was to have MILDER WINTERS, it would be harder to get people upset over it.

48 posted on 11/27/2011 6:23:42 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
The Allies didn't announce that Bodyguard was a ruse, and although they couldn't conceal the Normandy landing, the idea of Calais had its own inertia. Once the establishment had committed to Calais, it was hard to speak of anything else.

The "Climate Scientists" will NEVER admit to being wrong. They will just move on and change the subject.

49 posted on 11/27/2011 6:28:54 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Ice age constraints on climate sensitivity

Response and media coverage

All in all, this is an interesting paper and methodology, though we think it slightly underestimates the most likely sensitivity, and rather more seriously underestimates the chances that the sensitivity lies at the upper end of the IPCC range. Some other commentaries have come to similar conclusions: James Annan (here and here), and there is an excellent interview with Nathan Urban here, which discusses the caveats clearly. The perspective piece from Gabi Hegerl is also worth reading.

Unfortunately, the media coverage has not been very good. Partly, this is related to some ambiguous statements by the authors, and partly because media discussions of climate sensitivity have a history of being poorly done. The dominant frame was set by the press release which made a point of suggesting that this result made “extreme predictions” unlikely. This is fair enough, but had already been clear from the previous work discussed above. This was transformed into “Climate sensitivity was ‘overestimated’” by the BBC (not really a valid statement about the state of the science), compounded by the quote that Andreas Schmittner gave that “this implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought”. Who had previously thought what was left to the readers’ imagination. Indeed, the latter quote also prompted the predictably loony IBD editorial board to declare that this result proves that climate science is a fraud (though this is not Schmittner’s fault – they conclude the same thing every other Tuesday).

The Schmittner et al. analysis marks the insensitive end of the spectrum of climate sensitivity estimates based on LGM data, in large measure because it used a data set and a weighting that may well be biased toward insufficient cooling. Unfortunately, in reporting new scientific studies a common fallacy is to implicitly assume a new study is automatically “better” than previous work and supersedes this. In this case one can’t blame the media, since the authors’ press release cites Schmittner saying that “the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought”. It would have been more appropriate to say something like “our estimate of the effect is less than many previous estimates”.

50 posted on 11/28/2011 8:28:12 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson