Study: Earth's climate more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.binghamton.edu/mpr/news-releases/index.html?id=2350

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Study: Earth's climate more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought[/font]

2015-11-16

[font size=3] BINGHAMTON, NY – Ancient climates on Earth may have been more sensitive to carbon dioxide than was previously thought, according to new research from Binghamton University.

A team of Binghamton University researchers including geology PhD student Elliot A. Jagniecki and professors Tim Lowenstein, David Jenkins and Robert Demicco examined nahcolite crystals found in Colorado’s Green River Formation, formed 50 million years old during a hothouse climate. They found that CO2 levels during this time may have been as low as 680 parts per million (ppm), nearly half the 1,125 ppm predicted by previous experiments. The new data suggests that past predictions significantly underestimate the impact of greenhouse warming and that Earth’s climate may be more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide than was once thought, said Lowenstein.

"The significance of this is that CO2 50 million years ago may not have been as high as we once thought it was, but the climate back then was significantly warmer than it is today," said Lowenstein.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere today have reached 400 ppm. According to current projections, doubling the CO2 will result in a rise in the global average temperature of 3 degrees Centigrade. This new research suggests that the effects of CO2 on global warming may be underestimated.

…[/font][/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1

[GliderGuider]

1. So David Wasdell may not be a complete dilettante after all?

+7C per doubling looks a little more plausible today.

Estamos tan jodidos!

[Ghost Dog]

2. Our elites want to cull the population anyway...

n/t

[MisterP]

8. if they did we wouldn't just have cracked 7 bil: a lot of hungry people are cheap labor

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Svante Arrhenius suggested a bit less than that

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_2.php

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927)[/font]

[font size=3]Arrhenius did very little research in the fields of climatology and geophysics, and considered any work in these fields a hobby. His basic approach was to apply knowledge of basic scientific principles to make sense of existing observations, while hypothesizing a theory on the cause of the “Ice Age.” Later on, his geophysical work would serve as a catalyst for the work of others.

In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” This article described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth, and variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In order to proceed with his experiments, Arrhenius relied heavily on the experiments and observations of other scientists, including Josef Stefan, Arvid Gustaf Högbom, Samuel Langley, Leon Teisserenc de Bort, Knut Angstrom, Alexander Buchan, Luigi De Marchi, Joseph Fourier, C.S.M. Pouillet, and John Tyndall.

Arrhenius argued that variations in trace constituents—namely carbon dioxide—of the atmosphere could greatly influence the heat budget of the Earth. Using the best data available to him (and making many assumptions and estimates that were necessary), he performed a series of calculations on the temperature effects of increasing and decreasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. In order to get the temperature of the ice age between the 40th and 50th parallels, the carbonic acid in the air should sink to 0.62 to 0.55 of present value (lowering the temperature 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius).”[/font][/font]

[NickB79]

4. And our current 2C warming limit is based on the older, less-sensitive number

IE, the ppm of CO2e we THINK we can safely hit before reaching 2C is probably not accurate.

It is thus entirely likely that, based on this research, we've ALREADY PASSED the 2C limit of CO2e, and the carbon goals they're discussing in Paris will more than likely put us on the path to a 4C or greater future.

Fucking wonderful.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Based on the older, less-sensitive number, we were already due to blow past 2°C

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Target Atmospheric CO₂ : Where Should Humanity Aim?[/font]

…



Fig. (2). Global temperature (left scale) and GHG forcing (right scale) due to CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O from the Vostok ice core |17, 18|. Time scale is expanded for the industrial era. Ratio of temperature and forcing scales is 1.5°C per W/m², i.e., the temperature scale gives the expected equilibrium response to GHG change including (slow feedback) surface albedo change. Modern forcings include human-made aerosols, volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance |5|. GHG forcing zero point is the mean for 10-8 ky BP (Fig. S6). Zero point of modern temperature and net climate forcing was set at 1850 |5|, but this is also the zero point for 10-8 ky BP, as shown by the absence of a trend in Fig. (S6) and by the discussion of that figure.

…

[font size=4]2.4. Warming “in the pipeline”[/font]

[font size=3]The expanded time scale for the industrial era (Fig. 2) reveals a growing gap between actual global temperature (purple curve) and equilibrium (long-term) temperature response based on the net estimated climate forcing (black curve). Ocean and ice sheet response times together account for this gap, which is now 2.0°C.

The forcing in Fig. (2) (black curve, Fe scale), when used to drive a global climate model [5], yields global temperature change that agrees closely |Fig. (3) in 5| with observations (purple curve, Fig. 2). That climate model, which includes only fast feedbacks, has additional warming of ~0.6°C in the pipeline today because of ocean thermal inertia |5, 8|.

The remaining gap between equilibrium temperature for current atmospheric composition and actual global temperature is ~1.4°C. This further 1.4°C warming still to come is due to the slow surface albedo feedback, specifically ice sheet disintegration and vegetation change.

One may ask whether the climate system, as the Earth warms from its present ‘interglacial’ state, still has the capacity to supply slow feedbacks that double the fast-feedback sensitivity. This issue can be addressed by considering longer time scales including periods with no ice.

…[/font][/font]

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. ever notice that all bad news about climate change is worse/more..." than previously thought"?

[GliderGuider]

6. It's our normalcy bias at work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster and its possible effects. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations.

The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It can result in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

We doomers are often accused of its opposite:

The opposite of normalcy bias would be overreaction, or "worst-case thinking" bias,[1][2] in which small deviations from normality are dealt with as signaling an impending catastrophe.

The problem is that the ongoing research has tended to strengthen our position at pretty much every step of the way.