Carbon dioxide ended last Ice Age

2012-04-04 22:24

Paris - Carbon dioxide (CO2) was the big driver that ended the last Ice Age, scientists said on Wednesday in a study that undermines a key argument by global-warming sceptics.

About 10 000-20 000 years ago, Earth started to emerge from a quarter million years of deep freeze as the terrestrial ice sheet rolled back and warmer temperatures helped Man to spread out and conquer the planet.

What caused the end of this age, known as the Pleistocene, has long been debated.

Until now, the main evidence has come from ice cores drilled in Antarctica whose air bubbles are a tiny time capsule of our climate past.

Traces of CO2 - the principal greenhouse gas that traps solar heat - show that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere rose after temperatures were on the rise and not before as previously thought.

The timing has been seized upon by sceptics as proof that man-made carbon gases either do not cause global warming or at least do not make it as bad as mainstream scientists say.

Instead, natural changes in Earth's orbit, bringing the planet closer to the Sun, caused the warming, according to the dissident view.

But the new study says a far wider picture shows orbital change merely started things going.

Real responsibility for warming lay with CO2, it contends.

Researcher Jeremy Shakun of Harvard University said: "Orbital changes are the pacemaker. They're the trigger, but they don't get you too far.

"Our study shows that CO2 was a much more important factor and was really driving worldwide warming during the last deglaciation."


Published in the British journal Nature, the investigation looked at 80 ice cores and sedimentary samples taken from Greenland, lake bottoms and sea floors on every continent.

"Putting all of these records together into a reconstruction of global temperatures shows a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age," said Shakun.

A rise in carbon dioxide "actually precedes global temperature range, which is what you would expect if CO2 is causing the warming."

The scientists theorise that orbital shift boosted sunlight that warmed the northern hemisphere, causing some of its ice sheet to melt and spill gigatons of chilly freshwater into the North Atlantic.

The big gush had a dampening effect on a well-known "conveyor belt" of current by which warm water travels northwards on the surface of the Atlantic before cooling and returning southward at depth.

When the current braked, warm water began to build up in the southern Atlantic, where it swiftly started to warm up Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.

Warming the south in turn shifted the wind and melted sea ice, releasing some of the vast amounts of CO2 that had been absorbed by the ocean and stored in its depths, according to their hypothesis.

Today, CO2 - disgorged by the burning of coal, oil and gas - is again in the frame.

In London last week, 20 winners of the Blue Planet Prize, one of the world's most prestigious green awards, said current emissions of warming gases were so high there was only a "50-50" chance of limiting the temperature rise to 3ºC.

There were "serious risks" of a 5ºC rise, a temperature last seen on the planet 30 million years ago, they said.

  • amanda.victor2 - 2012-04-05 01:44

    Give it up already. CO2 is 0.038% of gasses in the atmosphere. Since when does a trace gas have so much influence on the climate. We should be thankful there is a rise as this increases plant food production to feed the billions on the earth. I'm so sick of this constant fear mongering. When you can control the sun then come speak to me.

      gordcragg - 2012-04-05 07:58

      I am so sick and tired of people with zero scientific credentials clinging onto the few fringe scientists that deny anthropomorphic global warming and then dismissing the majority of the scientific community in an arrogant, mocking tone. Ignorance is not something to be proud of. What happened to humility?? It is blatantly clear that these people are dismissing the notion of human-assisted climate change simply because they DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT. I have yet to see a denialist on this site that displays even a minimal understanding of climatology or science, their views are purely faith-based. When 97% of the relevant scientific authorities strongly disagree with you about something they know far more about, the least someone can do is cut down on the self-opinionated arrogance and sit up and take notice. Science is not the same as politics! Scientists have no agenda and there is no reason for them to fear-monger. If there was an agenda behind it the research would be skewed and would simply not be published. The scientific method holds up extremely well under external pressures. Shame on you Amanda!

      John - 2012-04-05 08:39

      Modo, Carbon emmissions is the new fashion. It used to be the whole in the ozone layer which was supposed to be caused by CFC's. Yet the hole was over Antartica but 90% of all CFC's were made and used in the Northern Hemisphere. Why no hole in the ozone layer over the Artic? The hole in the ozone was caused by a volcano in Antartica. Then we had the Y2K debacle. What happened - nothing. What all these proponents of CO2 causing global warming forget is that the greenhouse gas that has the greatest effect is water vapour. To prove this go out on a cloudy night and it is warm, on a cloudless night it is cold. Whilst I agree we should cut down on pollution, but like all consiparacy theorists the simple explantion that this might just be a natural phenomenum has been thrown out of the window.

      John - 2012-04-05 08:42

      Apologies for finger trouble with the spelling. Have just visited the Eastern Cape and it must have rubbed of on me.

      gordcragg - 2012-04-05 09:06

      @John - If extensive attempts at mitigation were not undertaken, Y2K would indeed have been an issue. The same is true for climate change. Science is not about "fashion", I can't actually believe you are saying this. It is an extremely pertinent issue at the moment since it affects us massively and needs to be addressed very soon (as Y2K was). Stop addressing 'proponents of CO2 causing global warming' as if you somehow know more about the issue than they do. The only reason you know the effects of water vapour is because these people, the proponents of anthropomorphic climate change, have done this research and made it available to us. They know far, far more than you do about the different effects of different gases on climate change. People such as you need to stop mischaracterising the scientists that are calling for action. Out of pure ignorance you seem to think that they hold the belief that it is only carbon that is causing this. They are the ones that have promoted the idea of water vapour being an issue, but the fact is increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in turn creates increased levels of water vapour in the air (Kiehl 1997, Soden 2001 & 2005, Santer 2007 etc) People such as you cling to half-truths yet think you understand the big picture. I have a feeling that you and fellow denialists have never read a single scientific paper on this matter and don't have any concept of what scientific consensus entails. This denial of science is holding us back.

      John - 2012-04-05 09:49

      Modo, Exceptionally emminent scientists used to believe that all substances contained phlogiston and the amount of phlogiston a substance contained depended on how well it burnt. This was a holy grail in scientific study and proved to be an absolute load of rubbish. Climate change is a natural phenomenum, the Romans used to get most of their wheat from Libya but now Libya looks like a builders yard waiting for the cement. Must have been all the carbon emmissions from their 2 horsepower chariots

      gordcragg - 2012-04-05 10:10

      Just because science has had a few misconceptions and failures (the overwhelming majority of which occurred long before the peer-review process and modern day scientific methodology was developed) doesn't mean that every scientific discovery is a fallacy. Surely (while you're typing this from your computer which is connected without delay and largely without wires to the entire world) I don't need to tell you that the successes of science far out-shadow it's mistakes. Now John, please enlighten me as to what research and knowledge you seem to be privy to that allows you to make such absolute and confident statements as to the causes of climate change that the entire scientific community (consisting of thousands of people who have dedicated their entire lives to the pursuit of understanding such phenomena)seem to be oblivious to. Expressing such misinformed and ignorant views as fact is the height of arrogance.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 12:09

      modo You have not really been able to show that you know much about climate science than amanda.victor2 either. You only showed your faith in what scientists say or what you think they say. When natural events are debated you dismiss it because you DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT. I don't think your contribution is that much more informative than amanda.victor2's statement.

      gordcragg - 2012-04-05 13:02

      @marius.dumas - I'm afraid taking the side of scientist is NOT faith-based since all the evidence is published and out in the open for everyone to see. I have read numerous scientific papers from various journals on the subject and you will have a very hard time finding one that is peer-reviewed that strongly opposes anthropomorphic climate change. And why would I 'not want to believe' that global warming is natural? Regardless of whether it is natural or not the fact is that we have the power to do A LOT more than we are currently doing to curb it. I would like to know why you are taking the side against scientists on this one? Why will you simply refuse to believe what they are saying? I could also obfuscate the issue by presenting pieces of data that support the notion of anthropomorphic climate change, and although I have a scientific qualification the point is it is meaningless in a discussion such as this. These are amateur, uninformed versions of debates that have been undertaken amongst far more qualified scientists, and the consensus they have reached should be the only important issue when discussing this. Taking this view does not require faith! It takes far far more faith to assume there is a conspiracy amongst the scientific community, so much so that it is a completely ridiculous notion.

      Ernst - 2012-04-05 13:04

      @marius.dumas: "You have not really been able to show that you know much about climate science than amanda.victor2 either. You only sho....." And what exactly do you know about climate science? You babble on like a bipolar patient going through a manic episode. Modo doesnt claim to know more about climate science than any other person. Modo doesnt disagree with what 98% of climate scientists, actively publishing in peer reviewed journals, are saying. Modo knows that it is wise to listen to experts that know the real intricacies of climate science. People that have PHD's in the field and that publish in prestigious journals. But I guess Marius is right, and 98% of climate scientists with PHD's are all fools and wrong and they were all so stupid that they did not think of taking other possible causes into account i.e. sun, etc.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 16:47

      The reason you would like to believe that Global warming is natural is because it is the only thing that recovered us from the last ice age. if not for global warming we would still be sitting on hundreds of meters thick ice. Global warming has been happening for the last 18000 years, melting ice that covered most of the earth, raising sea levels, raising temperatures. The polar ice caps is the last of the ice still left behind. With or without humans, global warming will indeed continue. This is why you should believe in a natural global warming. More than 60% of the last 560 million years the average temperature was 25°C this is an hothouse average temperature we as humans have never experienced. But I'm pretty sure we are returning to its more normal state (hot house), With or without humans. We are mainly still in the last ice age. If not for global warming we will have a whole new problem of risking falling back into an ice age which is far worse. Temperature at this climate is not stable. The earth like it either hot or cold, that in-between is never steady, it is transitional in nature. If natural causes of warming is so unlikely then was the industries burning of fossil fuels the reason the earth recovered from 5 major ice ages during the last 560 million years? or could the global warming have been natural? Think carefully before you answer because humans have not existed back then.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 17:52

      ERNST so do the Drs whos work you read know more than the Dr's work i read know?

  • Alfred - 2012-04-05 05:59

    So amanda and Sage I take it you are both scientists with PhD's in meteorology, thermodynamics or physics, or are you just a couple of conspiracy crackpots with delusions of grandee and no understanding of how science works, who think they know more about science than the entire scientific establishment, with the same mentality as Aids denialists. Crackpots or super geniuses? Gee I wonder which one it is?

      grant.hide - 2012-04-05 06:17

      They gonna figure it out someday. I think its the Sun that is warming our planet.

      ludlowdj - 2012-04-05 08:29

      And that's the best you can come up with ALFRED, "I'm the expert here!" sounds very much like the upper class whine of a "scientist with delusions of grandeur" where the hell did "grandee" come from anyway?? Bottom line here ALFRED is that the scientific community is itself divided over this issue, therefore supporters fall on both sides of the line as in every other aspect of our lives, and will continue to do so until the scientific community itself agree to the cause and effect. However if nothing else, be content in knowing that you have exposed the major weakness of those who believe themselves to be better than the common man and who expect us to defer to them because they are "older" have seen more and know more. Sorry to have used up your entire lunch break but you can get back to class OK? run along now.

      gordcragg - 2012-04-05 10:15

      @ludlowj - I think you missed the point of his post. He wasn't claiming to be the authority, he was appealing the actual authorities. Saying that the scientific community is divided is just totally fallacious and shows how little you are informed on this subject. The scientific community have reached an overwhelming consensus on the topic anthropomorphic global warming. There is simply not a relevant debate in scientific circles, it only happens amongst misinformed people such as those on this site. When 97% of the people most versed in a subject claim something to be true, the least you can do is remove your head out of the sand (and elsewhere) and take a little notice.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 11:52

      I don't think there is any Dr. degree that will give you the entire scope of climate change. It is a multi-disciplined field. I also think we need to differentiate between climate science as a science and climate science as business, and as political movement or as a media sensation. Often what we are taught is the media version and not the scientific version of climate science. We need to differentiate between probable causes and the facts of the theory. The probable causes are different to the accepted data of the climate change theory. For example: Climatologists are very uncertain about the role of the sun. We do know the sun is heading for maxima, we do know it is our only source of thermal energy and therefore a very powerful component. However because the climate science don't quite understand exactly how it affects climate is the reason they cannot put it in the AGW theory. Peer reviews will toss out anything that is not certain and well understood. I think it is unreasonable to say that if someone believe the sun plays a role that it is wrong only because it is not included in the theory. The only reason it is not included is not because it doesn’t exist, it is because there is uncertainty.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 11:53

      Human contribution is easy to measure and will not be tossed out, the evidence is solid. But even if the natural causes are much stronger than human intervention, it no be added to the theory unless it is well understood and proven. This is why AGW is a theory, it is subjected to future change as more facts and data is collected. AGW does not prove that humans caused it. It say that human contribution is all we have certainty about. Scientist are quite correct when they argue the role of the sun, ocean carbon cycles, ext. but it will be incorrect to actually write it into the theory unless it all is well understood and proper data can be supplied. But I agree that only because it is not well understood does not mean that it does not exist.

  • grant.hide - 2012-04-05 06:15

    I like, say no to Co2 tax. What a load of rubbish just for extra spending money.

      grant.hide - 2012-04-05 06:19

      Instead of being all smart and saying C02 tax, should have called it Pollution tax. Looks like they shot themselves in the foot. :D

  • E=MC2 - 2012-04-05 08:29

    what a load of crap! Another money making scare tactic by scientists...

  • hermansvn - 2012-04-05 09:14

    Go and place all the factories, power plants and all the other things you can think of along the 60 000km long, continuously erupting mid oceanic ridges that continuously produce a variety of green house gasses and see how far we as humans get in competing with our contribution to that of nature. Nature and the earth (geology) is much greater than us…and we are just arrogant to think we can change things as easily as nature does. 1st year geology students are already taught about the carbon cycle and that there are positive and negative feedbacks in nature that either exhume carbon to produce CO2 to keep us from being in a permanent freeze over or bury carbon in the form of coral reefs or coal deposits for instance to keep us form permanently being in a hothouse.

  • hermansvn - 2012-04-05 09:14

    Continues: Just look at the effect one large volcanic eruption (Krakatoa) had, placing Europe into the “little ice age” and that just with its ash cloud. This data just add to what we as scientists already know… is the way it gets interpreted……nobody speaks about the big picture……it is all about making money, just like the CFC issue years back when we all had to get rid of our old refrigerators and had to replace them with ozone friendly ones. Now we measure naturally occurring CFC-gasses seeping out of the ground everywhere, but nobody talks about that…… This whole debate is nonsense……the human race should rather focus on adapting, because even without use conditions will change as it has been doing for billions of years. Adapt or die ? We cant fight the Earth.

      Wendy - 2012-04-05 10:16

      "it is all about making money, just like the CFC issue years back when we all had to get rid of our old refrigerators and had to replace them with ozone friendly ones. " And the ozone-friendly fridges don't last 30 years like their predecessors!

  • Johnathon - 2012-04-05 09:27

    I am well versed in the earth sciences, and have read extensively on the suject. The latest theory by top scientists is that the earth is actually in a cooling phase, not a greenhouse warming cycle. If you research geological history, since time and memorial, the earth has had cycles over millions of years, of extensive ice ages, follow by periods of earth warming, and dramatic rising of sea level. Fossils and beach shells have been found in caves and marine deposits on cliff faces, tens of meters above present sea level. Glacial scour marks in geological formations have been found in the Transvaal, as well as in towns like Pietermaritzburg, which is a hundred km from the sea. All global warming theories, and huge carbon taxes on vehicles, aircraft and factories, is nothing but a money making racket. Man has admittedly had some effect on the earth’s atmosphere through industrial pollution, but this affect is no more than 5% of the changes taking place by natural climate change, influenced by changes of the earth rotational path, over millions of years. The last major ice age was caused by enormously massive clouds of volcanic ash and dust, emitted by emissions from hundreds of active volcanoes, made active due to natural erosion and deposition cycles during the earth’s history. These huge volcanic clouds cooled the earth down, leading to the extinction of dinosaurs and many other animal species. Global warming therefore, is a massive money making farce.

      hermansvn - 2012-04-05 09:30

      At least somebody else out there with a brain!

      Trevor - 2012-04-05 11:39

      I hate to argue with someone who is well versed in the earth sciences - arguably the highest accolade you can get in science , one notch ahead of Phd's and master degrees ! No one is arguing the fact of natural carbon cycles and ice ages ! Ice ages come and go and co2 levels rise and fall. as do sea levels ! which explain your fossils 10 of meters above sea level! Your "Transvaal" glacial scour marks as well as drop stones in the middle of Autralia prove that glaciers once covererd these areas ! These have been atributed to a time in our past 650 million years ago when the entire planet was covered was covered in glaciers a time known as snowball earth. this was caused by extreme Weathering when all the land masses where one and had extreme ammounts of rainfall! What led to the end of this period 'Volcaoes' which spew out CO2. Volcanic eruptions cause a cooling affect! This is true temporarily as CO2 is not the only material thrown out of a volcano. Ash and sulhur dioxide are spewed high into the atmosphere blocking the incoming sunlight causing the cooling but once the dust settles the co2 and other greenhouse gasses remain. Marine fossils have also been found at the top of Mt everest > oes this mean that sea level was that high no it sugests that due to plate tectonics the rock was once far away under an oceam. i am sure someone as well read as you that you read somewhere the most accepted theories to the end of the dinosaurs was a asteroind strike in the Yucatan

      Trevor - 2012-04-05 11:44

      i am sure you have heard of the great Permean extinction bigger than the asteroid event that killed the dinosuars ! killing 90 % of life on earth caused by a volcanic event of appocalyptic proportions . the event 250 million years ago lasted +/- 1 million Years left the siberian trappes a lava bed as large as the USA in siberia which still there today. caused the global temp to rise by over 10 deg worldwide.

      Trevor - 2012-04-05 12:13

      add to the natural CO2 producers the pollution of 7,000,000,000 people and the idustries that support them! add to this the decimation of all the forrests and jungles that scrubs the co2 - WE ARE HEADING TOWARDS AND EXTICTION EVENT THAT WILL EQUAL ANY NATURAL EVENT FROM THE PAST !

  • Sean - 2012-04-05 09:43

    The end of the ice age was a good thing. Current global warming is also a good thing. If huge parts of Siberia and Canada are freed from their frozen state they can become huge food producing regions. Very little can survive in these frozen climates. Warming them up so they can support more life can only be a good thing. The only reason this idea is unpopular in certain circles is that it will completely change the political status quo.

      Trevor - 2012-04-05 12:41

      @ Sean the only true staement in your post is that the end of the last ice age was a good thing ! if huge parts of siberia and canada are warmed this will only result in mosquito infested bogs and swamps , and a melting permafrost which locks huge stores of methane in check ! if these are released global warming will seem like a picnic you will be looking at temp increases in the order of 10 - 15 degrees worldwide !

      Trevor - 2012-04-05 12:54

      not to mention the countries that rely on the annual meltwater from glaciers !

  • Zion - 2012-04-05 10:43

    And the ignorant shall inherit and run the earth.

  • marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 10:50

    I don't see how it undermines Global Warming Sceptics. The sceptics normally question the amount of contribution to climate change made by nature vs. the amount made by man. The sceptics think nature contribute more than what is currently believed. This finding only proves how nature can create global warming without the intervention of man, increase CO2 levels without the need of man. So I think it helps the augment of sceptics big-time as more of the natural events that contribute to climate changes can gain more certainty. Uncertainty is the reason why many of the natural causes of climate change is not part of the theory. Climatologist reason that they don’t understand the effect the sun has on climate, therefore it is not part of the AGW theory. Once we can get a better understanding it will become more part of it. Sceptics reason that only because you don’t understand it, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Science reasons, if you cant prove it then we cant use it. One cannot have a credible theory unless all its components are proven and accurate facts. This means that it might eventually find its place in the AGW theory to show the greater extent where nature is responsible for warming and not only humans. AGW theory is what it is because human activity is easy to measure. The AGW theory is what it is not because of all the evidence in it, but because of all the uncertainties which is left out of it. As a sceptic of AGW, I'm pleased with the finding.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 10:59

      I’m glad to see the article make reference to the fact that solar irradiance affect global temperature since we are currently also heading toward solar maxima. I’m pleased to see that the article acknowledges the fact that nature creates its own global warming to recover from ice ages. I’m pleased to see that the article acknowledges the fact that nature it self can produce increases in CO2 without the contribution of man. It will take time for more certainty about these events to be gained in order to find its way into global warming theory.

      Ernst - 2012-04-05 12:46

      @Marius.dumas: So what you are saying is that pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere every year by burning oil, coal and gas has almost no effect on the climate? Furthermore, doing this at a very fast rate is not anything to be worried about? These are all very basic principles. It is not complicated. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is going to have an effect on the climate. If there is enough warming this could cause the release of more greenhouse gasses as methane is stored under many of the ice sheets. Remember: The world population is growing and emissions are going to continue for the next 50 years. In another one of your comments, you base your claims on publications like "forbes". (As if Forbes is a highly respected peer reviewed scientific journal). You post links like the one below: "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" Perhaps you should see this link instead and read the quote below: "The paper has been published in a journal called Remote Sensing, which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published." Since you are so fixated on solar activity, perhaps you should see:

      Ernst - 2012-04-05 13:19

      @Marius.Dumas: Perhaps you should also see the following. The journal editor resigned because of this "fundamentally flawed" paper that got through the peer reviewed system. ""

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 13:31

      ERNST I seem to think that there are more going on in the field of science than what you see on website. I don't learn about nuclear science on Green peace’s website nor will I bother to learn about climate science on website You read my comments the same way you read the science. I have never in any debate, ever about climate said or insinuated that humans do not contribute to green house gasses or climate change. In all my post I have only done one thing and that is to mention other natural effects also having a major effect on climate. Today I focused more on why they don't form part of the AGW theory. If you can find one post where I said humans do not contribute, then I will continue this senseless argument with you.

      gordcragg - 2012-04-05 13:41

      @Marius - You don't have to trust the scepticalscience website. Instead you can trust the numerous peer-reviewed papers they have linked to that back up every assertion they make. Do you even understand what makes a source reputable or not?? Did you even look at the website?

      Ernst - 2012-04-05 14:12

      @Marius.dumas: "........I don't learn about nuclear science on Green peace’s website nor will I bother to learn about climate science on website" Well then there you have it. You dont bother to check my links but I bother to check your links. So the very thing you are accusing me of (being biased) you are doing as well. The best you can come up with is mentioning "greenpeace", as if I and people that are concerned about humanities use of primitive energy sources, are just tree hugging hippies that hang out at greenpeace gatherings. Being a sceptic, as you call yourself, doesnt mean: Let me deny the fact that there is substantial scientific and forensic evidence that human activities are to blame. A true sceptic acknowledges that there is evidence showing a link. The website "Sceptical science" is based on peer reviewed scientific literature, unlike "greenpeace". This site provides citations to actual peer reviewed papers whether you like it or not.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 14:19

      Again I don't need a peer review to trust that NASA's website will write about the findings of NASA accurately. Peer review is the part where the theory must ensure that only well presented facts are involved. Otherwise it will not be approved. This means that all factors regardless how big or small which is still not well understood must be left out of such a theory. Since there are many events climatologist battle to explain, there are many events which are removed from the official theory because of uncertainties, events that cannot be considered non-existent only because of uncertainties. Secondly the statements made by the 97% of institutions who support the IPCC most of them have stated nothing more than that it is “likely” that humans caused it. That is according to the AGW theory. Not one has stated to my knowledge that humans is PROVEN to be the sole cause of climate change. Those are assumptions made by media and public. Many credible institutions even support the IPCC without having much of a stand on the issue. Assuming that all institutions that support the IPCC are necessarily stating that humans have indeed caused climate change is a bit over ambitious.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 14:34

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 14:40

      the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a satellite NASA will place into orbit with the purpose of gathering solar data and its effect on climate. This will open the doors to solar activity as a drive behind climate change if successful. NASA would not spend billions on this if they didn't think that there is substance behind it. There is an urgent need to get solar cycles accepted as part of the climate model. All they need is data and more evidence.

      gordcragg - 2012-04-05 14:43

      @Marius Do you think this page represents the findings of NASA accurately?

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 16:20

      The only thing NASA has found on that article is that the IPCC have said humans are contributing to global warming. I could also tell you that that is what the IPCC believe It does not say that humans are the primary cause, and it also repeated what the IPCC have said. That’s not really one of their findings since what the IPCC say is public knowledge and anyone can quote them. They have stated that there is no evidence that the sun is causing the heating. And I am well aware of that. That is the main reason why it is not accepted in the AGW theory. Only because the graphs don’t show correlation doesn’t mean its not their the current records is not designed to study the suns effect on climate, that’s why NASA is spending billions to put the SORCE satellite out there to find the evidence required to put certainty on the subject. The article appears to be more pro-AGW than anti. But that is normal deviation between articles at NASA there are more pro-AGW articles there. It just shows that there is some cautious differences in opinions in the sciences within NASA. To me it means a healthy un-bias in their community. Other than that skews everything only to the one side. One might say NASA scientists are slightly divided on some issues. I say “slightly” because I also find they are sometimes cautious to take any strong views on either side unless they have clear facts.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 16:23

      All I say is while scientists are still asking question and overwhelmed with uncertainties, you smart guys are already running with the facts alongside with the media and the politics.

      marius.dumas - 2012-04-05 17:28

      For example one of the reasons that solar cycles is not accepted is because of the heating in the troposphere and a cooling in the higher atmosphere. This cause logical reasoning that the sun does not provide more heat else the outer atmosphere should also be heating, further more only troposphere where the greenhouse gasses are is actually heating which makes quite a lot of sense in a way. The latest finding is that cosmic radiation from the sun gets absorbed by the CO2, and re-radiates the energy as infrared mostly. This has an cooling effect on the outer atmosphere. The important of this discovery is that it explains how an increase in solar activity could cool the outer atmosphere while still cause heating in the troposphere. The problem is there is not much data to support any and the global warming theory will not accept it unless more data is presented. It will be interesting to see what news SORCE is going to bring back for us about the suns role in climate.

  • ludlowdj - 2012-04-05 12:00

    At MOBO, Thanks for your 2cents worth which is all it is worth for all intents and purposes, your figures and statements are outright bull, climate change and global warming are at the center of scientific discussion and argument in scientific circles at present you 97% agreement rate is in fact little over 60 percent, and leading scientists in the field contrary to your assertion are still fairly much split down the middle. Misdirection which can be refuted by published articles is the stupidest of defense mechanisms MOBO catch a wake up!, by all means fight for your point of view, however to even try suggest that these discussions are only undertaken by the uninformed like us and not in the scientific community would indicate that your own knowledge is at the fringes of the community at best.

      gordcragg - 2012-04-05 12:59

      It's modo. Firstly, lying and pulling figures out of nowhere is not going to help your claims. I would like you to back up your assertions please. Here is a legitimate paper on views held by the public and scientists on climate change to back up the numbers I quoted: "Misdirection which can be refuted by published articles is the stupidest of defense mechanisms MOBO catch a wake up!" I'm really not sure what that statement means, but if you are trying to discredit published, peer-reviewed research I would love to hear what better sources you have for this kind of information? If you could provide me a link with your information, which you obviously have the utmost faith in, I would be truly interested in seeing it. Otherwise, it takes far, far more than a few misinformed pieces of data to try an refute an OVERWHELMING scientific consensus.

      Ernst - 2012-04-05 13:08

      @Modo: Well said mate. It seems the climate disinformers are at it again.

  • pages:
  • 1