CO2 was hidden in the ocean during the Ice Age: study

Mar 29, 2012

Why did the atmosphere contain so little carbon dioxide (CO2) during the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago? Why did it rise when the Earth's climate became warmer? Processes in the ocean are responsible for this, says a new study based on newly developed isotope measurements. This study has now been published in the scientific journal Science by German scientists from the Universities of Bern and Grenoble and the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association.

Around 20,000 years ago, the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the was distinctly lower than in the following . Measurements from Antarctic ice cores showed this already two decades ago. An international team of glaciologists thereafter looked even further back in time. The found that this close connection between carbon dioxide and temperature has existed over the past 800,000 years: with low during the Ice Ages and higher CO2 values during warm periods. Now they tried to answer also the question as to where the carbon dioxide was hidden during the Ice Ages and how it got back into the atmosphere at their ends.

"We have now been able to identify processes in the ocean which are connected to the observed rise in CO2", says Dr. Jochen Schmitt, lead author of the recently published study and researcher at the Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern. According to Schmitt, during the more and more carbon dioxide accumulated in the , causing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to drop. Only at the end of the Ice Age was this stored CO2 transported back to the through changing and thus emitted back into the atmosphere, write the scientists in the scientific journal "Science".

A new method for isotope measurements has now made it possible for the first time "to reliably decode the fingerprint of the CO2 preserved in the ice", explains Schmitt. He and his colleague Prof. Hubertus Fischer initially developed these new isotope measurement methods for ice cores at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research and further refined them in many years of research work after moving to Bern. Using the new method the glaciologists extract the air trapped in the ice core completely and the CO2 contained in the air is thoroughly cleaned. The different isotopes of the CO2 are analysed in a mass spectrometer and from this data the origin of the carbon dioxide can be derived.

Researchers suggested back in the eighties that this puzzle could be solved using an isotopic "CO2 fingerprint". However, it had so far not been possible to make a precise analysis of the trapped in the Antarctic ice due to the technical hurdles. The glaciologists and the climate researchers at the Universities of Bern and Grenoble and of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research have now managed a breakthrough with their study.

Development of Future Scenarios

"The new data have already enabled us to revise and improve a few theories about the possible reasons for CO2 fluctuations. Measurement data from the past enable us to gain a clearer idea about how the climate must have looked at the end of the Ice Age", says Jochen Schmitt. And now the data must be compared with the results from climate models to verify and further develop the models. "In addition to the scientific curiosity about how our Earth functioned in the past, the main question to be asked is how the Earth will develop under the influence of man", explains Jochen Schmitt. These are important scenarios for the future because the CO2 content in the atmosphere has never been anywhere near as high over the past 800,000 years as today, says the climate researcher.

Explore further: A 5.3-million-year record of sea level and temperature

Related Stories

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on Antarctica

Dec 01, 2011

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on AntarcticaAtmospheric carbon dioxide levels plunged by 40% before and during the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet 34 million years ago, according to a new study. The finding helps solv ...

Impact of sea-level rise on atmospheric CO2 concentrations

Jan 13, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The rise in sea level since the last ice age has prevented us from feeling the full impact of man-made global warming. The sea level rise has resulted in more harmful greenhouse gases being absorbed by the ...

Ice core studies confirm accuracy of climate models

Sep 11, 2008

An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in ...

Cosmic dust in terrestrial ice

Jul 27, 2006

For the last 30,000 years, our planet has been hit by a constant rain of cosmic dust particles. Scientists have reached this conclusion after investigating the amount of the helium isotope 3He in cosmic dust ...

Recommended for you

Melting during cooling period

13 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A University of Maine research team says stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean contributed to summer warming and glacial melting in Scotland during the period recognized for abrupt cooling ...

Warm US West, cold East: A 4,000-year pattern

16 hours ago

Last winter's curvy jet stream pattern brought mild temperatures to western North America and harsh cold to the East. A University of Utah-led study shows that pattern became more pronounced 4,000 years ago, ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (44) Mar 29, 2012
Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming Denialism.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
The coral bleaching should be therefore prominent during the Ice Age, because the concentration of carbon dioxide in marine water was supposedly high this time. But the corals managed to survive the Ice Age without problem.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Mar 29, 2012
Coral bleaching isn't caused by ph changes due to dissolved CO2 in ocean water. It is caused by an increase in the temperature of the ocean water. Something that probably had little effect during an ice age.

NotParker
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2012
Wait ... more CO2 flows out of the oceans when they warm?

Seems quite obvious that warmth results in more CO2, not the other way around.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2012
It's AGW! All them cavemen with their campfires have ruined the world! Quick! We must work to revert the world to its naturally frozen state! Notify the IPCC! LOL

One cavemen to another: I pee, see, see?
Caveman 2 response: Good, use pee, put out fire. Save world from climate change.

RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2012
@NotParker - it has been well known for over a century that cold water can hold more dissolved gas of almost any kind.

CO2 warms the earth's surface, including the oceans.
The warmer oceans then hold less CO2, so they release CO2.
That CO2 further warms the earth's surface, including the oceans.
This is one of the positive feedbacks that amplifies the effect of CO2 (a bigger amplification being water vapor).

It is also why CO2 increases typically both precedes AND follow temperature increases.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2012
The main cause of the warming is the geothermal and hydrothermal volcanism that exudes the CO2 and other gases up through seawater and out into the atmosphere. AGW is minor in comparison to these natural causes. That's not to say that particulate matter in the atmosphere is unimportant. . .it is extremely important to sequester those particulates to avoid forms of lung disease in humans and animals. But AGWites tend to IGNORE natural causes of global warming.

from: http://www.msnbc....1SHgqMb1

From the link: "The group of 12 underwater mountains lies south of the South Sandwich Islands desolate, ice-covered volcanoes that rise above the southern Atlantic Ocean about halfway between South America and South Africa and erupted as recently as 2008. It's the first time such a large number of undersea volcanoes has been found together in the Antarctic region."
joefarah
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2012
The cooler the oceans the more they absorb CO2. The more CO2 they absorb, the cooler they become. The cooler they become, the more CO2 they absorb.

This is one of the positive feedback mechanisms that amplify the effects of CO2 on Global Cooling.

It`s also why CO2 decreases typically both precede AND follow temperature decreases.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2012
@NotParker - it has been well known for over a century that cold water can hold more dissolved gas of almost any kind.

CO2 warms the earth's surface, including the oceans.
The warmer oceans then hold less CO2, so they release CO2.
That CO2 further warms the earth's surface, including the oceans.
This is one of the positive feedbacks that amplifies the effect of CO2 (a bigger amplification being water vapor).

It is also why CO2 increases typically both precedes AND follow temperature increases.
Then however did it get cold, in the first place?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
The cooler the oceans the more they absorb CO2. The more CO2 they absorb, the cooler they become. The cooler they become, the more CO2 they absorb.

This is one of the positive feedback mechanisms that amplify the effects of CO2 on Global Cooling.

It`s also why CO2 decreases typically both precede AND follow temperature decreases.
Then however did it get warm again?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (37) Mar 31, 2012
Nope.

"more CO2 flows out of the oceans when they warm?" - ParkerTard

The direction of diffusion of CO2 into/out of the ocean is determined by the partial pressure of CO2 above the ocean, and the concentraion of CO2 in the top layer of ocean water along with the temperature of that water.

Your appreciation of the complexity of the interface is equivalent to that of a grade school student who knows nothing of basic grade 10 chemistry.

Poor ParkerTard. Just can't figure out how anything works. No wonder he is a ConservaTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Mar 31, 2012
It is well known and has been for a very long time, that the current spate of ice ages are the result of slow and predictable changes in the earths rotational and orbital parameters

How is it that you don't know this, Tard Boy?

"Then however did it get cold, in the first place?" - UbVonTard
"Then however did it get warm again?" - UbVonTard

Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (37) Mar 31, 2012
Not directly, but yes, if the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is fixed, or is constrained from changing too rapidly the net effect is a positive feedback. Yes.

"The cooler the oceans the more they absorb CO2. The more CO2 they absorb, the cooler they become. The cooler they become, the more CO2 they absorb." - Ioe
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (37) Mar 31, 2012
A non-fact that is nicely illustrated by the lower concentration of CO2 in deep ocean water.

"The main cause of the warming is the geothermal and hydrothermal volcanism that exudes the CO2 and other gases up through seawater" - RichieTard

Poor Tard Boy has his own pet theory that the most elementary data doesn't support.

Maybe there is a conspiracy among ocean scientists to report the wrong CO2 concntrations in the ocean to make Richie Tard look stupid.

He doesn't need their help.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (35) Mar 31, 2012
12 ay?

Let us know when you find 12 million of them.

"The group of 12 underwater mountains lies south of the South Sandwich Islands desolate..." - Richie Tard

Odd how there is no warming visible in the ocean waters above those "volcanoes".

Why is that, Tard Boy?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2012
It is well known and has been for a very long time, that the current spate of ice ages are the result of slow and predictable changes in the earths rotational and orbital parameters

How is it that you don't know this?
All you're saying here is global warming and cooling happens in spite of atmospheric CO2 content. How does that further your AGW argument/agenda?

And while you're at it, please explain how a decade of cooling is actually "accelerated" global warming.
RealScience
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
Then however did it get cold, in the first place?

@NotParker - if you are going to be commenting, please do a bit of reading on the subject first... wikepedia at the very minimum - start with this: http://en.wikiped...h_cycles

As for how it gets warm again, that's actually a much better question. Once warming starts the process is the feedbacks (of which CO2 has been discussed above), but the triggering mechanism details are still being worked out. There have been some papers recently on why ice ages have several pulses of advancing ice and then a sudden collapse of the ice sheets, so we are getting closer to detailed answers, but it is still a 'hot topic' in research.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Mar 31, 2012
Why do you elect to leave out the reason that I provided to you for the cause of the ice ages?

Like a true idiot, you asked for the cause, and are now ignoring the cause.

"All you're saying here is global warming and cooling happens in spite of atmospheric CO2 content." - UbVonTard

If you weren't such a dishonest retard, you might have asked yourself what changed in the Earth's climate system that caused the Earth to become sensitive to Milankovitch cycles in the first place.

And there you will find that CO2 is in part responsible.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Mar 31, 2012
Ignoring facts is a characteristic of a dishonest denialist like yourself.

As a honest man, I don't state or consider only those facts that support my position. Unlike you, I go where the evidence leads, rather than torturing the evidence to take me where my conservative ideology demands that I go.

I am a clear minded slave to reality.

You on the other hand are delusional and suffering from a deep mental illness that stems from your political ideology.

"How does that further your AGW argument/agenda?" - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2012
Why do you elect to leave out the reason that I provided to you for the cause of the ice ages?
Don't blame the messenger. You're the one that excluded CO2 as the cause.

Like a true idiot, you asked for the cause, and are now ignoring the cause.
How is pointing out the cause not being related to atmospheric CO2 content, ignoring it?

If you weren't such a dishonest retard, you might have asked yourself what changed in the Earth's climate system that caused the Earth to become sensitive to Milankovitch cycles in the first place.
Okay. What changed in the Earth's climate system that caused the Earth to become sensitive to Milankovitch cycles in the first place?

And there you will find that CO2 is in part responsible.
But you just said it wasn't. How does that work?

If you're correct, we'd never have an iceage, 'cause CO2 would prevent it. The facts state otherwise.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2012
Ignoring facts is a characteristic of a dishonest denialist like yourself.
You mean like you ignoring there's been no net global warming for 14 years, and the sea levels are falling, and a decade of cooling isn't really "accelerated" global warming?

As a honest man, I don't state or consider only those facts that support my position. Unlike you, I go where the evidence leads, rather than torturing the evidence to take me where my conservative ideology demands that I go.
LOL. You're a laugh riot there VDtard. You SPECIALIZE in ignoring data.

I am a clear minded slave to reality.
Stop it! You're making my sides hurt!

Please, for posterity, tell us in your "reality" how a decade of global cooling is actually "accelerated" global warming.

You on the other hand are delusional and suffering from a deep mental illness that stems from your political ideology.
Says the Green Party nut-job.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (38) Mar 31, 2012
You are not a messenger, but a failed consumer of knowledge.

And that is why you ignore the answer to the very question you asked. Ice ages are caused by slowly evolving changes in the orbital and rotational parameters of the earth.

"Don't blame the messenger." - UbVonTard

"How is pointing out the cause not being related to atmospheric CO2 content, ignoring it?" - UbVonTard

If you had done such a thing. But you did not do so. I did.

And now you are lying about it.

The current changes in global temperature are not caused by the glacially slow changes in the orbital and rotational parameters of the earth which take tens of thousands of years to manifest themselves.

The primary cause now known to science for almost 150 years is the changing concentration of CO2.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (35) Mar 31, 2012
"What changed in the Earth's climate system that caused the Earth to become sensitive to Milankovitch cycles in the first place?" - RyggTard

Primarily it was due to a reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels from a state where variations in insolation that were too small to have significantly altered the planets ice balance, to a state where those same insolation changes were large enough, at which point positive feedbacks from the reflective surface of new ice - and other positive feedbacks - amplified the effect, producing ice ages.

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012
Primarily it was due to a reduction ...


In your IQ.

Ice ages have been occurring for 600 million years. The most recent ones are probably because of continental shift that allows cold water to flow.

Antarctica split off from Gondwanaland and moved south about 20-30 million years ago.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2012
With the sun as hot as it is now, it took the circumpolar current AND lower CO2 to start this series of ice ages, plus a Milankovitch-cycle cooling to start a given ice age.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (36) Mar 31, 2012
Regular ice ages have only been been occurring for 2.5 million years or so.

"Ice ages have been occurring for 600 million years." - Parker Tard

There have been other periods of glaciation, but they were not periodic, and are associated with lowered levels of atmospheric CO2.

In the distant past when the continents were fused into a super-continent ocean circulation patterns differed from today. The sun was dimmer, the Antarctic had no land based ice cap, Greenland didn't exist, and the surface of the earth prior to 500 million years was barren rock without plant or animal life.

The causes of rare periods of glaciation at that time or earlier were not what is causing the regular onset of glacial periods that we see today.

Poor ignorant Parker Tard.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012
You are not a messenger, but a failed consumer of knowledge.

And that is why you ignore the answer to the very question you asked. Ice ages are caused by slowly evolving changes in the orbital and rotational parameters of the earth.
Again, all you're saying is CO2 has nothing to do with climate.

If you had done such a thing. But you did not do so. I did.
And there you again confirm, CO2 has nothing to do with climate change!

And now you are lying about it.
Says the master liar.

The current changes in global temperature are not caused by the glacially slow changes in the orbital and rotational parameters of the earth which take tens of thousands of years to manifest themselves.
Uh, hasn't it been tens of thousands of years since our last iceage?

The primary cause now known to science for almost 150 years is the changing concentration of CO2.
Then why has "global warming" stalled out? Heck, it's been cooling for over a decade!
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012
"What changed in the Earth's climate system that caused the Earth to become sensitive to Milankovitch cycles in the first place?"

Primarily it was due to a reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels from a state where variations in insolation that were too small to have significantly altered the planets ice balance, to a state where those same insolation changes were large enough, at which point positive feedbacks from the reflective surface of new ice - and other positive feedbacks - amplified the effect, producing ice ages.
Then however did it get warm again?
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2012
Regular ice ages have only been been occurring for 2.5 million years or so.


"At least seven ice ages have been recognized. At least four of them are considered significant because of the extent of their glaciation or because they lasted for an extremely long time:

about 2 million years ago to the presentthe Quaternary Ice Age

350 to 250 million years agothe Karoo Ice Age

800 to 600 million years agothe Cryogenian (or Sturtian-Varangian) Ice Age

2400 to 2100 million years agothe Huronian Ice Age."

VD has no perspective at all.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (37) Apr 01, 2012
"Then however did it get warm again?" - UbVonTard

Increasing insolation caused by the same periodic changes that caused the initial decrease in insoltion warmed the ocean and the unfrozen land surface pushing back the equilibrium point for the snow and ice. Warm ocean water outgassed CO2 stored from the ice age and the resulting warming caused even more warming and more melting.

Warming also caused atmospheric methane levels and eventually water vapour levels to increase, warming the atmosphere more, and causing the glaciers to retreat to the positions they held at the end of the current glacial period 12,000 years ago.

Typically, as has been the case in this interglacial, temperatures overshoot the equilibrium point and then slowly cool until the next glacial period. This cooling is punctuated by various anomalies of various origins.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (36) Apr 01, 2012
Probably because it hasn't.

Don't you remember that you just finished admitting that you intend to be a liar for the rest of your life.

That is why you claim the warming trend has stalled.

"Then why has "global warming" stalled out?" - UbVonTard

Sanescience
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
Yes, yes, lets insult and denigrate because differences of opinion certainly can't be allowed. And certainly wining over those of differing opinions is far less important than self satisfaction and ego stroking of indulging in moral indignation and superiority. Certainty no one would be put off or take an antagonistic position because of the insulting tone taken by its proponent. Naaa...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2012
Increasing insolation caused by the same periodic changes that caused the initial decrease in insoltion warmed the ocean and the unfrozen land surface pushing back the equilibrium point for the snow and ice. Warm ocean water outgassed CO2 stored from the ice age and the resulting warming caused even more warming and more melting.

Warming also caused atmospheric methane levels and eventually water vapour levels to increase, warming the atmosphere more, and causing the glaciers to retreat to the positions they held at the end of the current glacial period 12,000 years ago.

Typically, as has been the case in this interglacial, temperatures overshoot the equilibrium point and then slowly cool until the next glacial period. This cooling is punctuated by various anomalies of various origins.
All you're doing is stating other factors caused the warming and cooling periods, and CO2 just went along for the ride.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2012
Then why has "global warming" stalled out? - Uba


Probably because it hasn't.
But you already admitted it has. So are you lying now, or then?
rubberman
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
"All you're doing is stating other factors caused the warming and cooling periods, and CO2 just went along for the ride."

Until we got here it did. Increased atmosheric CO2 USED to be a result of a warming climate that acted as a feedback to continue the warming cycle, and allow other feedbacks to initiate to amplify warming further. Our CO2 input has changed the entire nature of climate change because WE have initiated a proven climate forcing by artificially elevating it.
It is a proven fact that CO2 is a GHG.
Nobody disputes the nature of GHG's.
Over the last 800,000 years we have had numerous glaciations and warming events during which time CO2 PPM never rose above 280.
Todays level is 393 PPM and rising. To say that this has no effect is wilful ignorance because to do so is to claim you do not believe things which science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Graeme
not rated yet Apr 03, 2012
Are there dead spots in the ocean circulation where there would still be water undisturbed from the ice age, or at least so slow moving it is still around with measurable composition?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2012
Until we got here it did. Increased atmosheric CO2 USED to be a result of a warming climate that acted as a feedback to continue the warming cycle, and allow other feedbacks to initiate to amplify warming further. Our CO2 input has changed the entire nature of climate change because WE have initiated a proven climate forcing by artificially elevating it.
It is a proven fact that CO2 is a GHG.
Nobody disputes the nature of GHG's.
Over the last 800,000 years we have had numerous glaciations and warming events during which time CO2 PPM never rose above 280.
Todays level is 393 PPM and rising. To say that this has no effect is wilful ignorance because to do so is to claim you do not believe things which science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
We've had no net global warming for 14 years. If CO2 had such a strong effect, how come there is no current correlation between continuously rising CO2 levels, and global temperature?

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (36) Apr 04, 2012
You poor Tard. There are many factors that can alter the earth's temperature. CO2 concentration is just one of them.

During the transition from glacial to interglacial periods, CO2 acts as an amplifier to enhance the warming effect of the change in solar insolation through it's slow release from warming oceans, and it's slow re-uptake from cooling oceans (glacial onset)

But right now CO2 is in the driver's seat as the observed warming runs counter to the ongoing solar insolation changes.

"All you're doing is stating other factors caused the warming and cooling periods, and CO2 just went along for the ride." - UbVonTard

It isn't rocket science. It is K-8 Grade school science.

It is a sign of some deep mental illness that you spend hours out of your day lying about it.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (36) Apr 04, 2012
"We've had no net global warming for 14 years." - UbVonTard

But have had global warming for the last 13 years. And Global warming for the last 15 years.

Odd how that works out.

Meanwhile, climate is defined of 30 year periods. Here is the 30 year trend in temperature data.

http://www.woodfo...ti/trend

It isn't rocket science. It is K-8 Grade school science.

It is a sign of some deep mental illness that you spend hours out of your day lying about it.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (36) Apr 04, 2012
UbVonTard has publicly admitted that he is a liar and intends to continue to lie regarding Global Warming for the rest of his life.

It is mental illness on his part, and worthy only of denigration.

"Yes, yes, lets insult and denigrate because differences of opinion certainly can't be allowed." - Insane
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2012
No global warming for 15 years.

http://climaterea...?id=9389

Satellite data has March .11C warmer than 1980. Last month if was colder than 1980.

Yet CO2, the amazingly impotent limp GHG has had no effect for 15 years and is so patheticly limp and impotent it never caused any warming. It was all natural.
rubberman
5 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2012
No global warming for 15 years.

http://climaterea...?id=9389

Satellite data has March .11C warmer than 1980. Last month if was colder than 1980.

It was all natural.


LMAO!!! Either you found this site and posted a comment, or you and one OTHER guy found this site...but well done! Other than the text where they state that we are coming out of the warmest decade instruments have ever recorded (2001-2011)....and they state that 90's were warmer than the 80's, and the 80's were warmer than the 70's...then STILL attempt to push the 15 year stall (coincidentally "stalled" at a plateau higher than the 50 years preceding the start year) they then (and I love this part) extrapolate that based on the 15 year "stall"...it is going to start cooling within the next few years...Is this your own personal web page? The contradictions and rediculous conclusions are right up your alley. (PS- extended solar minimum during "stall"...still no cooling= GHG effect)
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2012
coincidentally "stalled" at a plateau higher than the 50 years preceding the start year


1) Satellites were not measuring temperature 50 years ago ... or 68.

2) But ... http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

Jan 2012 0.218

Jan 1944 0.240

It was warmer 68 years ago.

And within .003C 70 years ago.

Jan 1942 0.215
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2012
There are many factors that can alter the earth's temperature. CO2 concentration is just one of them.

During the transition from glacial to interglacial periods, CO2 acts as an amplifier to enhance the warming effect of the change in solar insolation through it's slow release from warming oceans, and it's slow re-uptake from cooling oceans (glacial onset)

But right now CO2 is in the driver's seat as the observed warming runs counter to the ongoing solar insolation changes.
What warming? There's been no net warming for 14 years!

It isn't rocket science. It is K-8 Grade school science.
Then why are you always getting it wrong?

It is a sign of some deep mental illness that you spend hours out of your day lying about it.
The liar is clearly you. Answer the question I asked:

We've had no net global warming for 14 years. If CO2 had such a strong effect, how come there is no CURRENT correlation between continuously rising CO2 levels, and global temperature?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2012
UbVonTard has publicly admitted that he is a liar and intends to continue to lie regarding Global Warming for the rest of his life.
Just saying this proves you're the liar.

It is mental illness on his part, and worthy only of denigration.
Say the self admitted, murderous eco-terrorist.
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
It is well known and has been for a very long time, that the current spate of ice ages are the result of slow and predictable changes in the earths rotational and orbital parameters

How is it that you don't know this, Tard Boy?

"Then however did it get cold, in the first place?" - UbVonTard
"Then however did it get warm again?" - UbVonTard



VD The Troll,
Yes you are accidentally correct once again...
http://www.youtub...=related
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
The gravitational facts of other planets cause the ellipse of our orbit to slowly spin around the Sun. It takes about 112,000 years for the ellipse to revolve once relative to fix stars when considered together with two forms of perception add. And it takes about 21,000 years for the solstice to go from aphelion to aphelion. The dates of the perihelion and aphelion advanced each year on the Sun core an average of one day per 58 years. The eccentricity of Earth orbit is a measure of how round or how oval shape is. Over thousands of years the eccentricity of orbit varies as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets primarily Jupiter and Saturn. The orbital eccentricity cycles with a period of 100,000 years. As the eccentricity of the orbit evolves the semi major axis of orbital ellipse remains unchanged, so the length of the sidereal year remains unchanged. As the earth travels in its orbit the duration of seasons depends on eccentricity of the orbit. To be continued..
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
When the orbital eccentricity extreme, the seasons that occur on the far side of the orbit are substantially longer in duration. In addition the axial perception theres the axial tilt. The angle of Earth rotational axis makes with its orbital plane. Its currently about 23.4 degrees and is declining. This tilt varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees. It makes one complete tilt and back every 41,000 years. This changing tilt is directly related to Ice Ages on Earth. The last max tilt occurred in 8700 BC and the next min tilt will happen in 11,800 AD. The inclination of earths orbit drives up/down relative to the present orbit having a period of about 70,000 years. Orbit also moves relative to the orbit of other planets as well. to be continued...
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
By calculating the plane of unchanged total angular momentum of the solar system we can define the overall plane called the invariable plane. It is approximately the orbital plane of Jupiter. The inclination of earths orbit has a 100,000 year cycle relative to the invariable plane. This 100.000 years cycle closely matches the 100,000 pattern of ice ages.
A year on earth is directly determined by all the various orbital motions of the earth. So if someone tells you how many years old they are, you might ask them is that sidereal, tropical or anomalous years. End.
ACCKKII
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
Regular ice ages have only been been occurring for 2.5 million years or so.

"Ice ages have been occurring for 600 million years." - Parker Tard

There have been other periods of glaciation, but they were not periodic, and are associated with lowered levels of atmospheric CO2.

In the distant past when the continents were fused into a super-continent ocean circulation patterns differed from today. The sun was dimmer, the Antarctic had no land based ice cap, Greenland didn't exist, and the surface of the earth prior to 500 million years was barren rock without plant or animal life.

The causes of rare periods of glaciation at that time or earlier were not what is causing the regular onset of glacial periods that we see today.

Poor ignorant Parker Tard.

how comes 2.5 million years?

More news stories

Melting during cooling period

(Phys.org) —A University of Maine research team says stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean contributed to summer warming and glacial melting in Scotland during the period recognized for abrupt cooling ...

Down's chromosome cause genome-wide disruption

The extra copy of Chromosome 21 that causes Down's syndrome throws a spanner into the workings of all the other chromosomes as well, said a study published Wednesday that surprised its authors.