How the ice ages ended

May 01, 2013 by Cather­ine Zan­donella
Antarctica. Credit: Harley D. Nygren, NOAA

A study of sediment cores collected from the deep ocean supports a new explanation for how glacier melting at the end of the ice ages led to the release of carbon dioxide from the ocean.

The study published in Nature suggests that melting glaciers in the caused a disruption of , leading to the release of trapped carbon dioxide from the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.

Understanding what happened when previous glaciers melted could help make about future increases and their effects on the planet.

The evidence is strong that ice ages are driven by periodic changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the poles due to cyclic changes in Earth's rotation and orbit. Yet scientists have been puzzled by evidence that although the timing of ice ages are best explained by changes in sunlight in the northern part of the globe, the warming at the end of ice ages occurred first in the , with a rise in carbon dioxide levels appearing to be cued from the south.

The new study suggests that changes in ocean currents, connecting the north to the south through the deep ocean, were to blame.

Part of this story was suggested more than a decade ago and is already accepted by many : As glaciers in the north started melting, the influx of fresh water diluted the salty waters that today flow to the north from the tropics as an extension of the . Normally, these salty waters become cool and sink into the deep ocean, forming cold and dense water that flows southward, and allowing more salty tropical water to take its place in a sort of ocean conveyor belt. But the influx of fresh water due to melting glaciers stalled the conveyor belt.

How the ice ages ended
As glaciers melted in the northern reaches of the globe (far upper left), the influx of freshwater, which is naturally less dense than salt-laden ocean water, caused a reduction in the normally strong sinking of water in that region. This allowed silicate-rich deep water to rise upward into the shallower ocean waters (upward blue arrows), stimulating the production of opal by diatoms, while warm surface water mixed downward (red arrows) into the southern-sourced deep water. The rising silicate-rich water drew dense cold water from near Antarctica, yielding a cycle of water movement (in yellow). The new circulation pattern caused carbon dioxide stored in the deep water to be released to the atmosphere near Antarctica (far upper right). Credit: Daniel Sigman.

So how did this lead to changes in the southern hemisphere?

The new research suggests that the shutdown in northern sinking water allowed southern-sourced water to fill up the deep Atlantic, setting up a new ocean circulation pattern. This new circulation pattern brought deep-sea water, which was rich in carbon dioxide due to sunken dead marine algae, to the surface near Antarctica, where the gas escaped into the atmosphere and acted to drive global warming. (See diagram.)

The researchers included investigators from ETH Zürich, Princeton University, the University of Miami, the University of British Columbia, and the University of Bremen and the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. The Princeton effort was led by Daniel Sigman, the Dusenbury Professor of Geological and Geophysical Sciences.

The team tracked these historic movements of water through the study of that are rich in silicon dioxide, or opal. Tiny marine algae known as diatoms make their cell walls out of opal, and when the organisms die, their opal remains sink to the deep sea bed.

The researchers looked at opal in sediment core samples drilled from deep beneath the ocean floor off the coast of northwest Africa and Antarctica. The team found that each period of glacier melting, which occurred five times over the last 550 thousand years, corresponded to a spike in the amount of the opal in the sediment, signaling an increase in diatom growth. The timing of the opal spikes provides evidence that the deep, opal-rich waters in the south were drawn to the surface in response to new meltwater entering the northern ocean.

The mechanism clashes with a previously offered explanation of why the melting of the northern glaciers, or deglaciations, leads to the release of ocean carbon dioxide from the Southern Ocean – the theory that the in the north increased southern hemisphere westerly winds, which in turn caused upwelling of Southern Ocean deep waters. "While distinguishing between these alternatives is important," says Sigman, "the greater challenge is to test and understand a premise that is shared by both of these scenarios: that ice age conditions around Antarctica caused the deep ocean to be sluggish and rich in carbon dioxide. If this was really how the ice age ocean operated, then it calls for us to reconsider how we expect deep ocean circulation to respond to modern global warming."

Explore further: Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

More information: Meckler, A. et al. 2013. Deglacial pulses of deep-ocean silicate into the subtropical North Atlantic Ocean. Nature 495 (7442), 495–498. doi:10.1038/nature12006. Published online 27 March, 2013.

Related Stories

Diatoms explain release of CO2

Apr 10, 2013

(Phys.org) —Scientists have found unexpectedly high concentrations of opal, a mineral containing silicate, in marine sediments during the transition periods from ice ages to warm phases. The explanation ...

Dwindling buffer effect?

Mar 28, 2013

(Phys.org) —The Southern Ocean could absorb relatively less carbon dioxide in future if the global temperatures continue to rise as a result of human activities, as climate researchers from ETH Zurich demonstrate ...

Recommended for you

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

Apr 18, 2014

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Claudius
1.8 / 5 (33) May 01, 2013
Yet scientists have been puzzled by evidence that although the timing of ice ages are best explained by changes in sunlight in the northern part of the globe, the warming at the end of ice ages occurred first in the southern hemisphere, with a rise in carbon dioxide levels


There is an unstated implication here that CO2 caused the warming that ended the ice ages.

CO2 levels typically increase after warming. Why is it such a surprise that after "changes in sunlight" warmed the globe thereby ending the ice ages, that CO2 levels would then increase?

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (25) May 01, 2013
No, there is no such unstated implication. What do you think caused the sudden influx of fresh water?

Your misunderstandings are well displayed. There may have been changes of sunlight, but the real driver of warming was the release of CO2 from the deep oceans. In this case, CO2 is a feedback mechanism; the change in the amount of sunlight resulted in an influx of fresh water, which caused upwelling of deep, CO2 rich ocean water, which released CO2, which further warmed the planet, and so on. Its not a "surprise" the effect is generally well understood.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (32) May 01, 2013
but the real driver of warming was the release of CO2 from the deep oceans


Your statement is contradicted by the authors of this article when they say: "the timing of ice ages are best explained by changes in sunlight". (This is different from saying it is "best explained by the release of CO2.)

Also, you well know that historically increases in CO2 have lagged increases in temperature. You understand the word "lagged?" It means that temperatures increased, then some time later CO2 levels increased. If there is ANY cause and effect to be learned from this it is NOT that CO2 drove the temperatures up. So saying that CO2 is the real driver at the same time that the article says sunlight was the "best explanation" is disingenuous at best.

the change in the amount of sunlight resulted in an influx of fresh water


And how did the sunlight cause an "influx of fresh water"? Perhaps by increasing the temperature? No, that couldn't be.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (17) May 01, 2013
Claudius:

Milankovitch cycles caused an increase of insolation in N'ern latitudes, leading to slowly/increasingly greater summer melt of NH winter snows. This caused more melt-water into N'ern oceans. The usual sea current of denser, saltier S'ern ocean water ( normally at /near the surface as it approached N'ern latitudes ) then was forced under the colder, lighter water and, effectively reversed its flow ( in 3D ) to return to the southern oceans and up-well. This allowed atmospheric CO2 to increase, at first in the SH, and over decades/centuries the GHE feed-back increased global temps – in addition to the greater insolation still coming into northern latitudes from orbital changes.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (27) May 01, 2013
Claudius:

Milankovitch cycles caused an increase of insolation in N'ern latitudes, leading to slowly/increasingly greater summer melt of NH winter snows.


Couldn't you just as easily have said that the Milankovitch cycles led to greater temperatures which caused greater summer melt? Rather than adding another layer of complexity by requiring CO2 feedback? Isn't it enough that the temperature rose and melted snow? If CO2 levels rose later on, why assume they caused the end of the ice age rather than the increasing insolation? Ockham's razor prefers the simpler explanation.
runrig
4 / 5 (20) May 01, 2013

Couldn't you just as easily have said that the Milankovitch cycles led to greater temperatures which caused greater summer melt? Rather than adding another layer of complexity by requiring CO2 feedback? Isn't it enough that the temperature rose and melted snow? If CO2 levels rose later on, why assume they caused the end of the ice age rather than the increasing insolation? Ockham's razor prefers the simpler explanation.


Really Claudius, do you regard that as intelligent response. I was replying to your (apparent) confusion, and so deliberately used "words of of one syllable". If the "extra layer of complexity" caused more confusion, then I failed in my aim.
Just trying to help in explaining the full process. And further reinforce that climate is complex. An idea that completely eludes may Deniers on here. ( not necessarily you)
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (22) May 01, 2013
Claudius:

How do you manage to get it almost right and then so misunderstand it? runrig has explained well the cause of the increased sunlight (and yes, temp) resulting from the change in Earth's orbit. But that change was not enough to drive the end of the iceage. It was the addition of CO2 driving the warming which caused that. And yes, that time CO2 loading of the atmosphere lagged the temperature change. It got warmer, which caused a change in the ocean circulation, which released CO2, which caused it to warm more, which caused faster melting, which drove faster ocean circulation and the release of more CO2, which caused it to warm more, and so on. This peaked some 11,000 years ago, and CO2 levels have been holding steady, with temp falling, on average, until just recently. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
VENDItardE
1.1 / 5 (28) May 01, 2013
stick with it Claudius....the alarmists are always trying to confuse the issue.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (29) May 01, 2013
Couldn't you just as easily have said that the Milankovitch cycles led to greater temperatures which caused greater summer melt? Rather than adding another layer of complexity by requiring CO2 feedback?

No, because without the positive feedback loop caused by CO2 increasing radiative forcing the warming would have been substantially less.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) May 02, 2013
stick with it Claudius....the alarmists are always trying to confuse the issue.


You confuse "confuse" with the explanation of "complexity".
It has obviously escaped your attention Climate science is complex and none the more incorrect because of it.
Sherrin
1.6 / 5 (21) May 02, 2013
I'm with Claudius on this - he/she put it quite logically and gets my vote. : )
nowhere
5 / 5 (14) May 02, 2013
Couldn't you just as easily have said that the Milankovitch cycles led to greater temperatures which caused greater summer melt?

The greater temps were not enough to end the ice age. Where do you propose the extra energy required for a global melt came from?

Rather than adding another layer of complexity by requiring CO2 feedback? Isn't it enough that the temperature rose and melted snow?

No. Similarly, if i were to leave a candle in my freezer every second day my freezer wouldn't melt noticeably. Overall the temp would rise marginally, then remain constant.

If CO2 levels rose later on, why assume they caused the end of the ice age

Warming prior to CO2 increase had a different cause, that plateaued out. CO2 continued the thaw. simple.
Ockham's razor prefers the simpler explanation.

The simplest explanation that doesn't require magic.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (29) May 02, 2013
I'm with Claudius on this - he/she put it quite logically and gets my vote. : )

You've a rather strange notion of logic.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (11) May 03, 2013
ClaudiusTard was apparently incapable of reading and comprehending the article.

"Why is it such a surprise that after "changes in sunlight" warmed the globe thereby ending the ice ages, that CO2 levels would then increase?" - ClaudiusTard

The article pertains to the mechanism by which the CO2 was emitted, not that it was emitted, as has long been known.

Stupid.
beleg
1.8 / 5 (15) May 03, 2013
Human curiosity can not be tamed. We will also discovered at what part per million breathing becomes difficult. We are record breaker fanatics. The bigger, smaller, fastest, slowest, most...

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
New records daily.
Accu-sensationalists - now is the time to label or color me "the sky is falling" - alarmist blue.

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (21) May 03, 2013
Even in modern times, when they can be accurately measured, CO2 lags temperature. The AGW Alarmists are struggling to explain why currently, as CO2 increases the globe is actually getting cooler. The AGW Alarmist are so intent in promoting their agenda they are blind to reality.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (14) May 03, 2013
Even in modern times, when they can be accurately measured, CO2 lags temperature. The AGW Alarmists are struggling to explain why currently, as CO2 increases the globe is actually getting cooler. The AGW Alarmist are so intent in promoting their agenda they are blind to reality.


No, CO2 is not lagging temperature this time around, it is driving it. The temperature was falling on average for the last few thousand years prior to just recently, when CO2 began to be loaded into the atmosphere. Temperatures then began to rise. Quickly! What is scary is that there ARE feedbacks, but it does not appear that those feedbacks have been operating yet. There are signs, however, that they are starting to. If that occurs, things could get very hot indeed.

The globe is not getting cooler dumdum, despite the fact it should be.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (22) May 03, 2013
No, CO2 is not lagging temperature this time around, it is driving it. .....
The globe is not getting cooler dumdum, despite the fact it should be.

http://www.thegwp...erature/
http://www.global...re/10783
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (25) May 04, 2013
Even in modern times, when they can be accurately measured, CO2 lags temperature.

LIAR.
deepsand
3 / 5 (22) May 04, 2013
No, CO2 is not lagging temperature this time around, it is driving it. .....
The globe is not getting cooler dumdum, despite the fact it should be.

http://www.thegwp...erature/

TROLL TRASH.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (22) May 04, 2013
history trumps science when the science is speculative, politicized, and at odds with reality
http://www.thegwp...entists/
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 04, 2013
Even in modern times, when they can be accurately measured, CO2 lags temperature. The AGW Alarmists are struggling to explain why currently, as CO2 increases the globe is actually getting cooler. The AGW Alarmist are so intent in promoting their agenda they are blind to reality.


Anti ... are you posting at a piece-rate or something? Merely by shouting loudly/often does not make black, white. And you are only playing tennis with someone who will never miss.
This a post to Claudius on another thread....

The world is NOT cooling - look at the data ( below ) I know you want it too but the NH as a whole had a warmer winter than ave, especially the Arctic - which is a worry re coming summer's melts.

See ..http://ocean.dmi....n.uk.php

And here the temp anomalies this last winter ( +0.47C )
http://data.giss....;pol=reg

Also:http://thinkprogr...g-trend/

Oh, and could you please point me to the cause of the post-industrial warming, that just happens to mirror the rise in CO2.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (22) May 04, 2013
history trumps science when the science is speculative, politicized, and at odds with reality
http://www.thegwp...entists/

Another steaming heap of TROLL DUNG.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (25) May 04, 2013
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) that AO cites as a reliable source is neither unbiased nor engaged in scientific research.

A think tank based in the UK, its stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate AGW.

Established as a "charity," it is not required to, and has repeatedly refused to, disclose its funding sources.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (20) May 04, 2013
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) that AO cites as a reliable source is neither unbiased nor engaged in scientific research.

A think tank based in the UK, its stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate AGW.

Established as a "charity," it is not required to, and has repeatedly refused to, disclose its funding sources.

The typical ignorant AGW Alarmist Zealot's response. Attack the messenger NOT THE MESSAGE. If their science is wrong then show us.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (21) May 04, 2013
No, CO2 is not lagging temperature this time around, it is driving it.


This statement lacks scientific proof. I have challenged the AGW posters here to provide me with convincing proof that CO2 is causing a warming crisis. The responses I received convinced me that you have no legs to stand on.

I will summarize the "proof" as follows:

1.) Temperatures have been rising.
2.) CO2 levels have been rising.
3.) A look at possible factors didn't turn up anything, so it was simply "decided" that CO2 was the driving force.

This kind of reasoning is no better than a guess. So when the study we are commenting on begins with saying that sunlight caused warming which released CO2, AGW devotees immediately say that the warming caused by sunlight was insufficient to end the ice age, that only CO2 could have done it. This in spite of the fact that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, and the sun is a much more likely candidate.

This is bad science, at best.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 04, 2013
This statement lacks scientific proof. I have challenged the AGW posters here to provide me with convincing proof that CO2 is causing a warming crisis. The responses I received convinced me that you have no legs to stand on.

I will summarize the "proof" as follows:

1.) Temperatures have been rising.
2.) CO2 levels have been rising.
3.) A look at possible factors didn't turn up anything, so it was simply "decided" that CO2 was the driving force.

This kind of reasoning is no better than a guess. So when the study we are commenting on begins with saying that sunlight caused warming which released CO2, AGW devotees immediately say that the warming caused by sunlight was insufficient to end the ice age, that only CO2 could have done it. This in spite of the fact that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, and the sun is a much more likely candidate.

This is bad science, at best.


Try this Claudius .
https://ams.confe...0737.htm

Click for PDF
runrig
5 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
Claudius:
Also this on the role of the Sun....

http://e360.yale....ng/2431/
runrig
5 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
The typical ignorant AGW Alarmist Zealot's response. Attack the messenger NOT THE MESSAGE. If their science is wrong then show us.


OK ...

http://www.desmog...ly-stand
http://www.desmog...greening
http://www.desmog...se-gases
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
Claudius - you have been making the same argument, more or less, over several different threads; to wit, CO2 is not the cause of the current warming tread seen over the last century or so. You claim that rising CO2 levels are a result of rising temperatures (you admit then, that there is warming) and you claim that rising CO2 levels lag rising temperature. This raises an important question; does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? The answer, as has been explained, is both. We have been over this, several times over several threads. You then make the simplistic allegation that other causes of temperature rise were considered, found wanting, and as such it was "decided" that CO2 was the driver. This statement is disingenuous, at best. The science behind CO2 as a possible driver of atmospheric warming has been built up since the 1860's. At least you are admitting there IS warming, and we'll keep working on the rest of your misconceptions.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (19) May 04, 2013
Also this on the role of the Sun....


From your article:
"The contribution of water vapour to the increase in greenhouse radiation has not been included since it is a part of the natural climate feedback. There is some argument to suggest that tropospheric water vapour has already increased by several percent; hence, the corresponding flux contribution may need to be included...our measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled..."

By not including H20 the study over-emphasizes the role of CO2. In light of the fact that temperatures have not increased significantly over the last 15 years, the role of CO2 in catastrophic warming has to be questioned.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (18) May 04, 2013
You then make the simplistic allegation that other causes of temperature rise were considered, found wanting, and as such it was "decided" that CO2 was the driver. This statement is disingenuous, at best.


Sorry, Maggnus. The statement that CO2 was chosen based on the inability to find an explanation was taken from an article you or another AGW supporter provided as proof. Runrig's reference was better, but still not enough to convince me, as the study is flawed.
Egleton
3.4 / 5 (17) May 04, 2013
Go find your own planet to experiment on. I need this one for my grandchildren.
Claudius
1 / 5 (17) May 04, 2013
Claudius:
Also this on the role of the Sun....

http://e360.yale....ng/2431/


In addition to my comment on this article, there is a more scientific rebuttal of the study here:

http://scienceofd...art-two/

From the article:

"There appear to be three difficulties in many people's understanding of DLR (Downward Longwave Radiation):

It doesn't exist
It's not caused by the inappropriately-named "greenhouse" gases
It can't have any effect on the temperature of the earth's surface"

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 04, 2013
In addition to my comment on this article, there is a more scientific rebuttal of the study here:

http://scienceofd...art-two/

From the article:

"There appear to be three difficulties in many people's understanding of DLR (Downward Longwave Radiation):

It doesn't exist
It's not caused by the inappropriately-named "greenhouse" gases
It can't have any effect on the temperature of the earth's surface"


The link I gave is re CO2 forcing. Not the Sun - but no matter.

Quote from that paper ( it's just above yours )

"The fact that the data is expensive to obtain doesn't mean that there is any doubt that downward long-wave radiation exists and is significant. It's no more in question than the salinity of the ocean.

Err - you quote the skeptic's argument he goes on to rebut later in the paper!
runrig
5 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
Claudius...

Further

That site appears to be well respected amongst the "Acceptants" community.

http://www.skepti...oom.html
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 04, 2013
Claudius:
"By not including H20 the study over-emphasizes the role of CO2. ..."
"...as the study is flawed"


From paper....
".... it is apparent that the increase in the CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times has resulted in the largest increase in the radiative forcing at the surface."
"The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times.This compares favorably with a modeled prediction of 2.55 W/m2"

H20 doubling is seasonal ( more in summer's heat ).

The research was to measure the re-radiative forcing of the individual GHG's and shows that if anything ( at that stage ) forcing was running ahead of IPCC estimates.

H20 can be excluded because it is a natural climate feed-back - ie a constant, merely tracking temp (not driving it).

This study measured re-radiated ENERGY from CO2 in the atmosphere amongst other GHG's - Like sticking a thermometer right under the vertical column of CO2 above. Real world.
R_R
1 / 5 (19) May 04, 2013
Cept the Ice Ages never ended............ never existed, never coming back. Good movie though lol
Egleton
2.7 / 5 (16) May 04, 2013
Keep David Koch happy.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (23) May 04, 2013
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) that AO cites as a reliable source is neither unbiased nor engaged in scientific research.

A think tank based in the UK, its stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate AGW.

Established as a "charity," it is not required to, and has repeatedly refused to, disclose its funding sources.

The typical ignorant AGW Alarmist Zealot's response. Attack the messenger NOT THE MESSAGE. If their science is wrong then show us.

Another steaming heap of TROLL DUNG.

Get it through your thick skull that we're done trying to reason with you, that you are now deserving only of being held up to scorn and ridicule.

Deal with it.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (24) May 04, 2013
I have challenged the AGW posters here to provide me with convincing proof that CO2 is causing a warming crisis. The responses I received convinced me that you have no legs to stand on.

I will summarize the "proof" as follows:

1.) Temperatures have been rising.
2.) CO2 levels have been rising.
3.) A look at possible factors didn't turn up anything, so it was simply "decided" that CO2 was the driving force.

This kind of reasoning is no better than a guess. So when the study we are commenting on begins with saying that sunlight caused warming which released CO2, AGW devotees immediately say that the warming caused by sunlight was insufficient to end the ice age, that only CO2 could have done it. This in spite of the fact that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, and the sun is a much more likely candidate.

This is bad science, at best.

The bad science is yours, as has been amply demonstrated. There's no point in repeating what you don't want to hear.
Martin_Shaw
1.4 / 5 (19) May 04, 2013
Though the Earth has gone through many ice ages and warming episodes many people still think that they are causing the destruction of the world if they add a few hundred ppm of CO2. Global CO2 was thousands of ppm for 500 million years in the Phanerozoic period. Just take a trip to the Athabaska glacier and see that the glacier has been receding since the 1800's. 90% of CO2 is generated by bacteria; not human industrial activity. Greenhouse experiments show that plants are actually starved for CO2 at 300-400 ppm CO2. Doubling the CO2 increases tree growth rates by 40%. Plants evolved when CO2 was much higher. The AGW agenda is driven by economists who want to create another economy based on new financial instruments.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (26) May 05, 2013
Though the Earth has gone through many ice ages and warming episodes many people still think that they are causing the destruction of the world if they add a few hundred ppm of CO2. Global CO2 was thousands of ppm for 500 million years in the Phanerozoic period. Just take a trip to the Athabaska glacier and see that the glacier has been receding since the 1800's. 90% of CO2 is generated by bacteria; not human industrial activity. Greenhouse experiments show that plants are actually starved for CO2 at 300-400 ppm CO2. Doubling the CO2 increases tree growth rates by 40%. Plants evolved when CO2 was much higher. The AGW agenda is driven by economists who want to create another economy based on new financial instruments.

Had you bothered to do some real research before posting you might have avoided parroting these falsehoods.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (26) May 05, 2013
Though the Earth ... Just take a trip to the Athabaska glacier and see that the glacier has been receding since the 1800's. 90% of CO2 is generated by bacteria; not human industrial activity. Greenhouse experiments show that plants are actually starved for CO2 at 300-400 ppm CO2. Doubling the CO2 increases tree growth rates by 40%. Plants evolved when CO2 was much higher. The AGW agenda is driven by economists who want to create another economy based on new financial instruments.

Had you bothered to do some real research before posting you might have avoided parroting these falsehoods.

Had you bothered to stay on the surface of your cesspool of ignorance, you would probably have seen the light and the truth. Instead you chose to descend into the darkness of your stupidity.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (24) May 05, 2013
Though the Earth ... Just take a trip to the Athabaska glacier and see that the glacier has been receding since the 1800's. 90% of CO2 is generated by bacteria; not human industrial activity. Greenhouse experiments show that plants are actually starved for CO2 at 300-400 ppm CO2. Doubling the CO2 increases tree growth rates by 40%. Plants evolved when CO2 was much higher. The AGW agenda is driven by economists who want to create another economy based on new financial instruments.

Had you bothered to do some real research before posting you might have avoided parroting these falsehoods.

Had you bothered to stay on the surface of your cesspool of ignorance, you would probably have seen the light and the truth. Instead you chose to descend into the darkness of your stupidity.

PUERILE TROLL.
Whydening Gyre
1.3 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
One need only apply the info in the Phys.org article on complex systems to this argument. It's all about feedback loop interaction.
R_R
1.3 / 5 (17) May 05, 2013
Perhaps we had normal sized ice caps just in different positions, centered on previous poles. Maybe the north pole was on North America at Hudsonbay and never once did ice sheets cover Europe previous to 10500 BC. No Ice Age! But the evidence would be overwelming and obvious and theres no Wizard of Oz.

I really liked the part with the army of Dodo birds "PREPARE FOR THE ICE AGES" lol.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2013
Perhaps we had normal sized ice caps just in different positions, centered on previous poles. Maybe the north pole was on North America at Hudsonbay and never once did ice sheets cover Europe previous to 10500 BC. No Ice Age! But the evidence would be overwelming and obvious and theres no Wizard of Oz.

I really liked the part with the army of Dodo birds "PREPARE FOR THE ICE AGES" lol.


I'll let the arrogant narcissism, projection and bad spelling evident in your other 1/5 posts address your credibility:

"1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2012
Brainwashed chicxulub dude, the problem today is people like you "read" and just accept what u been told as fact simply becuase your selfish ilk masters present it as fact. ...
R_R

1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2012
I should elaborate given youve been trained not to think for yourself, we can from this new evidence conclude this chicxulub impact was not large enough to kill off the dinosaurs and therefore there is a much larger crater hiding out there somewhere"

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

Filipino tests negative for Middle East virus

A Filipino nurse who tested positive for the Middle East virus has been found free of infection in a subsequent examination after he returned home, Philippine health officials said Saturday.

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...