New study shows CO2 does not lag temperature

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by futurecurrents, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. In a new analysis of bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, published Thursday in Science, lead author Frederic Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics of the Environment, in Grenoble, France, and his colleagues write that at the end of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, “. . . Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of CO2, as has been suggested in earlier studies.”

    “Scientists had been saying the CO2 was an amplifier of global warming, but not the initial cause,” Parrenin said. “Now we’re saying it could be the cause.”

    This doesn't mean CO2 isn’t an amplifier as well. If the oceans warm, basic chemistry says that some of the carbon dioxide dissolved in the water will emerge into the atmosphere. And if the permafrost that covers about a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s land surface melts, it will put enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (plus methane, an even more powerful greenhouse), into the atmosphere as well.

    “I think they’ve taken a big step toward getting this right,” said Edward Brook, a paleo-climatologist at Oregon State University, in an interview. Brook also wrote a commentary on the research for Science, and he cautioned in that commentary that “We . . . do not know whether the results can be generalized to other time periods.”

    Still, if there remained any doubt that CO2 itself could initiate global warming, this paper — along with a 2012 paper that also showed no time lag — should go a long way toward putting that doubt to rest.

    The time lag suggested by those earlier studies didn’t call into question the well-established relation between CO2 and warming, and did nothing to lessen scientists’ confidence — and fear — that without curbing human greenhouse-gas emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise dangerously through the rest of this century. Nevertheless, the new research emphasizes that the CO2-warming relationship could be somewhat more straightforward in some ways than previously thought.
  2. Spam?
  3. I know. It seems I'm being hypocritical. But this is an important new study that is very relevant to the argument. It's not a trivial human interest story.
  4. Lucrum


    You should have stopped right there, Mr. two faced holier than thou hypocrite.
  5. As far as I'm concerned AGW is right up there with alien abductions and elvis sightings.

    So yeah it's a trivial non-interest story IMHO.

    But of course your obsession with it , is kinda funny to me.

    Maybe your DR can give you some meds for it.
  6. pspr


    It's just a hypothesis. The accepted truth is that there is an 800 year lag. At least you realize now that this is the accepted fact by scientists!!

    (French Researcher) Frédéric said. “We haven’t proved it, but at least the hypothesis can now be more carefully evaluated.”

    So, maybe you should quit spamming the forum with this tripe.
  7. Ricter


    I think temperatures on the light side and dark side of Mercury, and the light side and dark side of Venus, put to rest any doubt about the primacy of atmospheric CO2 (over proximity).
  8. pspr


    Just proves it's the Sun. Sunny side hot, other side cold. :D

    And what's up with the global warming on Mars? Did we send gas powered rovers up there emitting billions of tons of CO2? Or does that just show GW has something more to do with the Sun?
  9. Huh....:eek:

    What the temp on the light side and dark side of Uranus?

    Asking for a friend.:D
  10. jem


    you knew it was a hypothesis by the way the article was written.
    devoid of charts or stats.

    also the way the article wound up.
    it was like the lag just magically changed just the right amount.

    if the gas bubbles really were moving around... what are the odds the moved into the exact right spot.
    A real scientist would have been embarrassed by such a coincidence and would have explained it backwards and forwards.

    garbage science being touted by an agw nutter again.

    #10     Mar 3, 2013