Climate change from CO2 may not be as bad as predicted

According to a recent study funded by the National Science Foundation's Paleoclimate Program, climate change may be far less sensitive to carbon dioxide fluctuations than previously predicted.

The most notable predictions of CO2-based climate change came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2007. The report suggested that should the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere double from pre-Industrial standards (pre-1850), it could result in a global 2 to 4.5 degree Celsius (3.6 - 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase worldwide. The mean level in this finding was 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit). This, of course, would be catastrophic, leading to the melting of polar ice, as well as significant sea temperature increases and global flooding due to rising ocean levels.

It appears that that these dire numbers might not be accurate according to a the lead author of the new report, Oregon State University researcher Andreas Schmittner.

"Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale," said Schmittner. "When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago - which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum - and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.

"If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought," Schmittner added.

"In fact, a climate sensitivity of more than 6 [degrees] would completely freeze over the planet," Schmittner pointed out. This didn't happen. The ice sheets and glaciation only reached so far toward the equator and then stopped.

Some independent studies have suggested that the CO2 sensitivity might be 10 degrees Celsius or higher, although these studies are deemed "of low probability" by those within the climate change community.

"The best-fitting models had a climate sensitivity of about 2.3 - 2.4 degrees. So that is slightly less than the IPCC best estimate of 3."

Schmittner is also quick to note, however, that his model is far from perfect. For instance, it was unable to take into account changes in clouds once they absorbed sunlight. He expects the study would be much more accurate if cloud changes could somehow be figured in.

The study was published online in the journal Science.

Source: Oregon State University

COMMENTS:

Title is misleading. Even the author admits that his model is terribly flawed because it doesn't even account for cloud cover which is absolutely vital in calculations. There are other variables as well that this model doesn't cover such as threshhold events like the sudden acceleration in the release of trapped methane.

...

My observation is that the predictions made by a friend's father, an actual polar scientist who worked up on the ice for decades have come true. The polar ice cap is shrinking, The glaciers of Greenland are melting, the shipping routes are opening up through areas that used to be locked in ice all year around. At the time (1988)he told me that he suspected that it was pollution and carbon residue that were causing the melt.

Of course, I am watching all of this happen from Oslo and am pleased to say that I have not shoveled one cm2 of snow this year, so I am not crying a river about it but from where my 40+ year old bones stand it looks like climate change sceptics have their heads in the sand.

That an American government sponsored bunch of scientists should produce this report is about what one would expect. It wreaks of a desperate attempt to justify their nation's actions. Pity that a whole heap of other scientists say that they are wrong.

I care enough about my family, present and future, to prefer the precautionary approach. Let us just imagine that this report is correct. If it is and we have spent money on changing to a less polluting enviroment, well all to the good. However, if it is wrong and the IPCC is correct, which, considering the overwhelming amount of science that keeps pouring in to support their position, is highly likely, then future generations are in for a torrid time of it.

It is fitting that the one nation, more than any other, that has done most to hinder action to combat climate change, namely the U.S.A., will be the one most picked on when those that suffer are looking where to apportion blame. Personally, I don't think that we are far off a move by the peoples of the world to boycott the U.S.A. and its products.

Just to highlight the danger, Russian scientists have discovered a dramatic increase in Methane release from the Artic region. If that proves to be the long predicted melting of the cathcates in the sea-bed that are trapping methane (20 times better than CO2 as a greenhouse gas), then it is likely game over and all we can do is turn our backs on the U.S.A., plan to adapt to a hostile world and decide where to bury those that will die as a result. Just don't try and tell me that America is a Christian country.

Andreas Schmittner appears to be a fraud. Not only do we have the real evidence of the open Northwest Passage for the first time in thousands of years, but no one ever suggested the danger was from CO2. Everyone has always said it was CO2 achieving the tipping point when frozen methane hydrates would be released, that was the real danger. And that only happens in a short period at the beginning of a warming period. So his attempt to average over longer time periods is totally inaccurate. No one can question what has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.