nav search
Data Center Software Security DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes
BOFH
Lectures

back to article
CO2 warms Earth FASTER than previously thought

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Re: Blankets also retain 'cold',

Blankets are insulators, and stop heat transmission. They keep us warm since we produce heat,

and they stop it escaping. They would presumably also keep us cold, were we not exothermic.

Very crudely: The thing about CO2 is that it's more transparent to visible light than to infrared. Visible light thus zips easily through the atmospheric CO2 blanket like it wasn't there, gets converted to infrared, which is trapped. Thus in effect, CO2 traps heat (infrared) in, but fails to keep the source of that infrared (ie the visible light from the sun) out. Thus the atmosphere is warmed by this in-effect one-way CO2 blanket.

5
1

Re: What's that bright light in the sky then?

"Try telling that to farmers in africa looking at baked fields and destroyed crops."

Isn't this more to do with the political situation in the African nations? You know, the various fighting, the lack of people farming, lack of suitable crops, lack of funds for irrigation, stuff like that? It's not as simple as you imply. Equally, the Elderly that are freezing isn't down to CO2, but down to lack of adequate heating as their benefits are cut and they can't afford to keep warm. Again, it's social and political more than climate.

"Oh , and wasn't it a little bit warm in the USA this year?"

And it's been very cold and wet here in the UK. Something to do with the Jet stream...

"If there was no CO2 the average temperature of the earth would be about -30C"

I'm not certain this is correct. There is a geological ground temperature that I believe is closer to +6C about sea level (this increases as you go deeper into the ground), then there is surface temperature that varies depending on things like wind chill, plus there is the heating effect from the sun. CO2 reflects IR, according to another post, and this is how it holds heat in. Yet the sun also emits IR light, so isn't CO2 reflecting that and so keeping us cooler than if there is no CO2? I don't know the numbers, but it would be interesting to see how much heat CO2 retains per KG, against how much it's reflecting away. It might (hypothetically - I've no evidence at all either way) be that CO2 turns out to be neutral in this regard - that it reflects as much heat in the form of IR from the sun as it retains. Just a thought - be nice if someone's checking this.

1
3
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: What's that bright light in the sky then?

"CO2 reflects IR, according to another post,"

That other post was wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

"be that CO2 turns out to be neutral in this regard - that it reflects as much heat in the form of IR from the sun as it retains. Just a thought - be nice if someone's checking this."

Err, I think you'll find its been checked more than a few times - its basic physics. If you think CO2 is neutral wrt to heat you might want to go find out about Venus.

Jesus Christ, is it all liberal arts types posting on this subject?

1
0
FAIL

Re: What's that bright light in the sky then?

"Yet the sun also emits IR light, so isn't CO2 reflecting that and so keeping us cooler than if there is no CO2?"

+1 for attempt at logic, -12 for science fail.

The CO2 does indeed reflect incoming some of the Sun's IR back out. However, as mentioned in a previous post, it does nothing to stop the shorter wavelength/higher frequency rays, such as light, from getting in. This light is in turn absorbed by objects (the darker the object, the more the absorbtion) and converted to heat. This heat is then re-emitted by said objects *in the IR range*, and therefore the Earth is trying to emit more IR than it receives from the Sun.

Which the CO2 reflects back in.

Hence the warming effect of increased CO2.

"It might (hypothetically - I've no evidence at all either way) "

Try Google. A lot of scientists have been doing a lot of work on this recently.

Or just not commenting on a subject you don't understand/follow. Better to stay quiet and be thought a fool, etc...

2
0
Silver badge

Re: What's that bright light in the sky then?

"Which the CO2 reflects back in."

Strictly speaking it absords IR then re-radiates it later in some random direction which means the odds are against it being in a direction out into space hence the atmosphere retains heat.

0
0

Re: What's that bright light in the sky then?

"CO2 is one of the most misunderstood subjects on the planet."

You missed out "by me".

Your post is idiotic. How does it go again? Something like;

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”

0
0

Temperature rises before CO2

The report confirms that temperatures rise before CO2 rises. So us pumping out more CO2 and increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by tiny amounts is not causing any global rise in temperature.

Sounds more like something external to the Earth is causing the temperatures to rise and this is leading to a rise in CO2. Maybe that external factor is the SUN!

7
9

Re: Temperature rises before CO2

No, this report confirms that in the time period studied, it is likely that CO2 rises lagged heat rises.

Those heat rises were probably caused by Milankovitch cycles or some such: haven't read the actual report yet.

However, their report implies that natural feedback effects are likely to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, making the likely impact worse.

3
3

Re: Temperature rises before CO2

"The report confirms that temperatures rise before CO2 rises. So us pumping out more CO2 and increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by tiny amounts is not causing any global rise in temperature."

That does not follow (pardon the pun), think about it.

"Sounds more like something external to the Earth is causing the temperatures to rise and this is leading to a rise in CO2. Maybe that external factor is the SUN!"

In a very brief nutshell, the current theory/understanding is that insolation changes due to the Earths orbital cycles cause some warming to take place - that in turn releases CO2 from the seas as they warm, and that additional CO2 then causes some further rises.

For more details see numerous online references, or for a more detailed examination based on more recent data (last 20,000 years) the Shakun et al 2012 paper.

2
0
FAIL

Hang on a second...

What is the summary here about? They say CO2 increase LAGS TEMPERATURE BY 400 YEARS. They don't rule out it leading only because they need to pay homage to the paradigm in order to get published and funded.

I mean you say it yourself IT LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE!

4
8

Re: Hang on a second...

Climate change happens, but it doesn't just happen, it always has to have a cause. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its effects are measurable and predictable in terms of solar radiation received and absorbed versus reflected out again.

In the distant past, we have seen how rising temperatures due to natural causes have themselves caused a corresponding rise in CO2. That's the natural way it seems.

In the present however, we have seen a rise in CO2. We have also seen a corresponding rise in temperatures that closely parallels this rise in CO2. We have not seen a change in solar radiation in the same period, nor have we found any other reason for this rise in temperatures. The rise in CO2 is not natural either, being caused by human activities, the normal processes of climate change are not responsible.

Ice core records show how climate changed in the past, when natural forces alone held sway.

Things are different now.

In the very recent past it was actual US government policy to discredit findings on climate change due to human activities and large energy corporations have spent untold billions on enforcing that policy. It has to be said that they got their money's worth.

4
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hang on a second...

Increases in natural CO2 emissions lagging temperature rise is well established. You are assuming that if A causes B then B cannot cause A; this is a logical fallacy. As temperature rises so does CO2 (e.g. it is less soluble in warm water, so the sea releases CO2). This increased level of CO2 then causes a further temperature rise. Pretty much standard climate science - no conspiracy here, move along.

5
0

Re: Hang on a second...

@Gerry Doyle 1 - Now that IS good Trolling.

'Things are different now.' - Madonna has been replaced by Lady GaGa that's diffrent.

0
2

Re: Hang on a second...

"We have not seen a change in solar radiation in the same period, nor have we found any other reason for this rise in temperatures. "

Really? IIRC, the temperatures of Earth, Mars, Titan, Saturn, and the Gallilean satellites have all risen since the late seventies, and that solar activity (spots, flares, plages, etc) has increased in the same time, for over three sunspot cycles. (You can't count Jupiter, BTW, since it's still releasing heat from its formation, lo these many years later.)

0
3

Re: Hang on a second...

"the temperatures of Earth, Mars, Titan, Saturn, and the Gallilean satellites have all risen since the late seventies, and that solar activity (spots, flares, plages, etc) has increased in the same time, for over three sunspot cycles."

We only know that temperature of Earth has increased, not those other bodies you mention. We don't have temperature measuring satellites nor surface instruments measuring sufficient area of any non-earth body to determine it's temperature trends.

More importantly, solar activity has decreased, not increased, since the late 70s (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970)

3
1

Re: Hang on a second...

We have not seen corresponding changes in solar activity in the same period *that could account for current temperature changes*, nor have we found any other cause that could account for this rise in temperatures.

Yes, really Armando.

All that money spent on all that disinformation. Worth every cent - and the best bit is that the dupes think that they are the skeptics.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hang on a second... @NomNomNom

Solar activity is at its highest for 1,000 years.

0
2

Re: Hang on a second... @ AC

"Solar activity is at its highest for 1,000 years" sez he. Well stop the lights, alert the IPCC.

How many times do I have to say this - "We have not seen *corresponding* changes in solar activity in the same period **that could account for current temperature changes**, nor have we found any other cause that could account for this rise in temperatures."

1
0
Devil

Welllllllll......

I like Simon Sharwood but then I like Lewis Page, which one is better?

There's only one way to find out......

FIGHT!!!!!!

0
0
Childcatcher

When...

someone makes conclusions from suggestions as stated in the text, then they are not just desperate, they are hopelessly wrong. Just another computer model operating on the 'rubbish in, rubbish out' theory.

0
2
Thumb Up

Science is settled, except when it's bad news

Any idiot can see temperatures have plummetted across Australia since Gillard introduced the Carbon Tax.

My only concern is that it will start to heat up again after the winter.

1
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

@ 90% of population lives near coast

They always have done. There's plenty of evidence for coastal settlements at various locations now a _long_ way underwater (~300 feet)

On an individual level, rising sea levels are an irritation, but people can always relocate.

Longer term they'll result in settlements being abandoned. See above.

Economically it's unlikely that there'll be much impact. Companies and infrastructure can also migrate, given enough warning (which they have). There are modern cities which _should_ be abandoned and some which are in the process of this being done. It's only a matter of time before New Orleans is lost.

The _real_ unknown is how food resources will be affected. Will enough land become arable to make up for areas lost to sea/desertification, etc. Will there be enough potable water to go around?

Population movements due to such events inthe past have resulted in warfare or local dieoffs. Whilst it's arguable that a malthusian dieback is necessary for survival as a species, history shows that any rapid drop in human population has been outweighed by a following growth spike as survivors breed to replace lost numbers.

Whatever happens, humans will survive. Civilisation will also survive, but not necessarily in current form.

0
0
Devil

Re: @ 90% of population lives near coast

"There are modern cities which _should_ be abandoned and some which are in the process of this being done. It's only a matter of time before New Orleans is lost."

Be careful or their coach will put a bounty on your head. #nfl

0
0

Re: @ 90% of population lives near coast

populations will try to hold back the rising seas as long as possible and it'll only end when disaster strikes.

^^ Doesn't trust mans ability to adapt.

Eg New Orleans.

0
0

I see that the Reg is suspiciously quiet about NASA's news on Greenland today.

0
0

Greenland melt surprises NASA Earth-watchers

Giant slushy attributed to ‘heat dome’

By Richard Chirgwin • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 24th July 2012 23:06 GMT

0
0

Now wait just a ding-dong minute

I could have sworn that it was proven that CO2 *lags* warming in the atmosphere. Was that study disproved or officially ignored? Not flaming or trolling, I seriously want to know.

0
1

Like others have said I think this article is wrong. I've only read the paper's abstract but it seems to be about the lag between temperature and CO2 rise (in that order), and doesn't suggest that "CO2 warms Earth FASTER than previously thought"

Well okay once you go through the feedback warming -> co2 rise -> more warming then yes shortening the first arrow of causality will mean the end result (extra warming) happens sooner. But I think it's a stretch to focus on that and has no obvious bearing on the current CO2 rise which is a result of man, not natural.

1
0
Thumb Down

Bassackwards

The "lag" is a delay between initial atmospheric warming and an increase in CO2 that follows the warming. The original analysis of ice cores such the Vostok cores showed that CO2 increases were delayed compared to global temperature increases by as much as 1,000 years. If you are seriously certain that CO2 causes significant warming, the causality is backwards - and a real problem in any discussion where you want convince people not to run their SUVs. The original AGW explanation was that ice ages ended because of periodic changes in planetary orbital characteristics (Milankovich cycles). Since the CO2 only began to increase AFTER the warming began, the AGW argument was that the end of the ice age was triggered by orbital changes and finished by CO2. The paper just published appears to have been intended to make the lag go away - and thus eliminate the little causality issue. It didn't succeed, but did reduce the average lag estimate to a "few centuries."

0
1

CO2 v Water vapor

Why CO2 is irrelevant:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

1
1
Alert

Mother Earth knows best..

I've read the reports of many of these ice core studies, and one thing stands out clearly. The Earth's temperature rises and falls in cycles. It gets hot, it cools down, and so on.

Considering the time span found in some of the cores drilled at Vostok, for much of the time, in fact in the way of things, mankind was only (possibly or probably is not important right now) a small factor in what was found, because 100,000 years ago, we weren't a significant impact on the planet's ecosystem.

What was evident that after the peak of every rise, there was an increase in atmospheric dust, followed by a sudden and dramatic fall in temperature. One can only guess that this dust was volcanic, and we therefore went through a period of major eruptions that spewed billions of tons of pumice into the sky, blocking the sun for tens if not hundreds of years, bringing about ice-age transformations.

We could be at another peak now, or in another year or three thousand. The geologists have been discussing super-volcanoes for a while now, expecting Yellowstone to go up sometime soon (soon in Earth terms could be any time now, or again, in a few hundred, or thousand years) and when it does, they expect a "volcanic winter" to take place, with global temperature drops of anything up to 15, maybe 20 degrees due to the dust occupying the upper atmosphere and blocking most of the sun.

I have no doubt that what we - humans - do has cause an acceleration in climate change, but what we do is minor to the effect of the sun. It affects sea currents, sea currents affect the jet stream, the jet stream affects our weather patterns. Solar magnetic storms also have an effect on our own earth's core, that in turn has an effect on seismic activity, with also is inter-related to tectonic activity.

I don't for one moment think the sea is going to rise by the levels the scaremongers keep whining about. Get a glass of ice, top it up to the brim with water. Wait for the ice to melt, now see the level. It will have fallen!! We're not seeing the sea rise, we're seeing the plates FALL in some areas, where they are rising elsewhere.

And we're allowing people to debate it, and legislate against us, who are thinking of one thing only - taxation of the populous. Climate Change is the new religion. Stone the heretics. Persecute the unbelievers! Praise taxation because it's the only way we'll stop it. Now will someone give King Canute a bigger fork to push the sea back.

0
1

Re: Mother Earth knows best..

Populous was a computer game - I believe you're thinking of "populace".

Regardless. Governments don't need a bogey man to be able to raise taxes. If they need to raise money, they'll raise it. Seeing climate change as merely a vehicle for taxation is naive.

If you believe you have a better explanation for what is happening than the scientists do - publish and be peer reviewed. Provide the evidence, have your theory tested and debated. If you are unwilling or unable to do that - you must know in your heart of hearts that it's because your theory is bollocks. Even if you're not a practising scientist, do you have *any* relevant training or qualifications? Any examinations or qualifications in Chemistry, Biology, Geography? If the answer is "no", then you're suffering from the Drunning-Kruger effect. Put simply, you don't know enough to know why you're wrong.

0
0

So how this result invalidating anything about human-caused warming?

If anything, it means it's worse than we expected ... so the CO2 we're adding to the atmophere is likely to cause even more problems than the current models. It invalidates nothing about currently accepted climate research.

Lately there has been some other results (of course NOT reported in any of the one-sided non-scientific "science" reporting on this website) that have indicated that global warming effects have been worse than previously extrapolated, and that tipping point may very well be closer to the current levels, rather than what has been expected 30 years from now.

Even though the warming is worse than the models predicted, the reasons why it is worse are largely due to very difficult to model effects of melting tundra, glaciers, warming land, and oceans releasing additional amounts of methane, nitrous oxides, and dying forests burning away -- all of which make the problem worse, but until they start actually happening, it's rather difficult to calculate how much of a runaway feedback they have. It doesn't invalidate the science itself, as the warming effects HAVE happened pretty much as predicted (not that you would know this by reading anything on THIS website), but now that the warming is beginning to happen in a big way, the positive feedback effects are kicking in at a faster rate than predicted.

That doesn't invalidate the science, it just means that we need to learn more about the many different ways that rising temperatures create these frankly scary runaway effects.

Of course, the incredible heat wave and droughts in most of the US (and exceptional floods and droughts elsewhere) get no mention in this article, just snarky and rather unjustified critiques of well-accepted climate science.

3
0

CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature

"the increase in CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature cannot be excluded.”

They think that the CO2 increase may have occurred only 400 years after it got warmer, but the measurement error is high enough that they can't absolutely prove that the CO2 increase didn't occur before the warming. This is the first paper to cast any doubt on the accepted science that CO2 increases have lways lagged, that is came after warming, not the other way around. It doesn't cast much doubt: Essentially they are saying CO2 increase lagged warming by 400 Years +/- 400years.

This comment was probably inserted to avoid attack from warmists, so they could get their paper published: it just says "this doesn't absolutely disprove AGW."

In nature, CO2 increases always come after warming, as a result of the increase in living things: warming brings an explosion in life, generating more CO2.

0
0

Re: CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature

"In nature, CO2 increases always come after warming..."

Indeed it does, but this isn't a natural increase in CO2.

0
0
WTF?

Oh Dear.....

...I though all these "GLOBAL DISASTER" doomsayers might have given up.

IT'S NOT A PROBLEM - REALLY!

0
1
Silver badge

It's a pity

el Reg doesn't allow commentators to change the font size - then you really could have gotten your point across.

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing