Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Won't Cause Rapid Climate Change?

[William Wallace]

New Study published in Nature Geoscience this week. What are your thoughts, sciencey people?

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1169.html

https://www.science20.com/news_articles/geological_record_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_wont_cause_rapid_climate_change-80150?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

You've heard or read the scenarios - rapidly escalating levels of CO2 could cause rapidly escalating temperatures, even as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit.    The problem is that they are just scenarios based on a growing, yet incomplete, understanding of how climate works.

During some periods in the past, there has been 10 times the CO2 present today with little change in temperature.  At other times, temperatures have spiked rapidly but it had little to do with CO2.

Rapid temperature swings can occur (and that will be bad) but speculating that the same could happen again as the atmosphere becomes overloaded with carbon dioxide is not based on evidence and new research lends support to numerous recent studies that suggest abrupt climate change appears to be the result of alterations in ocean circulation uniquely associated with ice ages.

[rumborak]

Is that what the paper really says? The way the abstract reads that does not seem to be the conclusion at all.

rumborak

[XJDenton]

I've read the paper and have minimal understanding of the science I'm afraid.

[GuineaPig]

The news article that links to it is rather misleading.  The paper itself focuses on the impact of sudden cooling events on delta O18 measurements in stalactites, and how that might affect our understanding of monsoon patterns.  The only part of the paper that is along the lines of what the news article says it is is the final sentence:

Specifically, we propose that precessional forcing causes in-phase variations in the intensity of convection in the northern Indian Ocean and over the ocean just south of China, and hence in-phase changes in the efficiency of isotopic fractionation associated with deep convection in these regions. As a consequence, there are in-phase variations in the isotopic composition of vapour that originates from these two monsoon regions and is subsequently advected northward towards China and preserved in the speleothem records across southern and eastern China. That dynamics internal to the climate system can create changes in the Indian monsoon comparable to that associated with large orbital forcing makes us reconsider what the climate system may be capable of doing in response to more modest forcing, such as increasing greenhouse gases.

[rumborak]

I mean, I would love this to be the conclusion, but frankly this just looks like yet another gross misrepresentation of a scientific result by the media. And sadly, WW, you were instrumental in perpetuating the misrepresentation too.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I mean, I would love this to be the conclusion, but frankly this just looks like yet another gross misrepresentation of a scientific result by the media. And sadly, WW, you were instrumental in perpetuating the misrepresentation too.

rumborak

Assuming you're correct, how exactly did I do that? I asked, "New Study published in Nature Geoscience this week. What are your thoughts, sciencey people?"

[William Wallace]

The news article that links to it is rather misleading.  The paper itself focuses on the impact of sudden cooling events on delta O18 measurements in stalactites, and how that might affect our understanding of monsoon patterns.  The only part of the paper that is along the lines of what the news article says it is is the final sentence:

Specifically, we propose that precessional forcing causes in-phase variations in the intensity of convection in the northern Indian Ocean and over the ocean just south of China, and hence in-phase changes in the efficiency of isotopic fractionation associated with deep convection in these regions. As a consequence, there are in-phase variations in the isotopic composition of vapour that originates from these two monsoon regions and is subsequently advected northward towards China and preserved in the speleothem records across southern and eastern China. That dynamics internal to the climate system can create changes in the Indian monsoon comparable to that associated with large orbital forcing makes us reconsider what the climate system may be capable of doing in response to more modest forcing, such as increasing greenhouse gases.

Explain how the article is misleading. I didn't think it was, but the technical language in the paper is a bit beyond me.

[Scheavo]

In some ways, I'm starting to think the climate change talks about CO2 overshadow a more important threat: the oceans ecosystem.

Just read a report today about how it's collapsing and deteriorating quicker than we previously though. CO2 and ocean acidification is but a part of this, but at 450ppm it becomes a serious serious threat.

And I think the "won't" is too strong for the article. Also, the article mentions how ocean circulation may be the more pressing matter, and the melting of the polar ice caps is changing and messing with that ocean current. That melting can be caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere, so I don't think this paper rules out rapid change in any way. However, I couldn't read the paper, so I'm just basing this upon the synopsis and the article.

[rumborak]

The news article that links to it is rather misleading.  The paper itself focuses on the impact of sudden cooling events on delta O18 measurements in stalactites, and how that might affect our understanding of monsoon patterns.  The only part of the paper that is along the lines of what the news article says it is is the final sentence:

Specifically, we propose that precessional forcing causes in-phase variations in the intensity of convection in the northern Indian Ocean and over the ocean just south of China, and hence in-phase changes in the efficiency of isotopic fractionation associated with deep convection in these regions. As a consequence, there are in-phase variations in the isotopic composition of vapour that originates from these two monsoon regions and is subsequently advected northward towards China and preserved in the speleothem records across southern and eastern China. That dynamics internal to the climate system can create changes in the Indian monsoon comparable to that associated with large orbital forcing makes us reconsider what the climate system may be capable of doing in response to more modest forcing, such as increasing greenhouse gases.

Explain how the article is misleading. I didn't think it was, but the technical language in the paper is a bit beyond me.

The article is misleading in that it generalizes from what seems to be a very specific configuration, and thus suggests to the reader that this result can be applied across the globe. Which, unless I am misunderstanding the paper, is not what the authors claim.

rumborak

[Dublagent66]

Well, it's true that Co2 won't be the complete cause of it, but it's definitely a catalyst.  Methane and water vapor are the main causes of atmospheric instability in a greenhouse type scenario.  I think Co2 is mostly responsible for depleting ozone which can lead to much bigger problems.

[Chino]

In some ways, I'm starting to think the climate change talks about CO2 overshadow a more important threat: the oceans ecosystem.

Just read a report today about how it's collapsing and deteriorating quicker than we previously though. CO2 and ocean acidification is but a part of this, but at 450ppm it becomes a serious serious threat.

And I think the "won't" is too strong for the article. Also, the article mentions how ocean circulation may be the more pressing matter, and the melting of the polar ice caps is changing and messing with that ocean current. That melting can be caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere, so I don't think this paper rules out rapid change in any way. However, I couldn't read the paper, so I'm just basing this upon the synopsis and the article.

I wish there was more emphasis on the ice caps. Regardless whether climate change has affected them or not is almost irrelevant. The fact is that they are melting right now. Attribute it to whatever you'd like, but you can't deny that they are rapidly deminishing. All that water is going to have to be displaced somewhere. Cities will be under water and millions of people will need to be relocated. We may never agree on what is causing it, but we are going to have to agree on how we are going to handle it.

[GuineaPig]

The melting of the ice caps is not significant with regards to rising water levels.  That's mostly thermal expansion.

The bigger problem is the positive feedback loop it initiates.

[XJDenton]

88 metres from antarctica melting from my calculations. That's not significant?

[GuineaPig]

Antarctica's not going to melt.  Not in the next several hundred years, at the very least.

[Super Dude]

In some ways, I'm starting to think the climate change talks about CO2 overshadow a more important threat: the oceans ecosystem.

Just read a report today about how it's collapsing and deteriorating quicker than we previously though. CO2 and ocean acidification is but a part of this, but at 450ppm it becomes a serious serious threat.

And I think the "won't" is too strong for the article. Also, the article mentions how ocean circulation may be the more pressing matter, and the melting of the polar ice caps is changing and messing with that ocean current. That melting can be caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere, so I don't think this paper rules out rapid change in any way. However, I couldn't read the paper, so I'm just basing this upon the synopsis and the article.

Yes that is a big deal but when the bolded bit occurs and the methane from the polar ice caps is released, all bets are off.  In other words, actual end-of-world event.  And I'm not just talking end of the human race, I mean the end of terrestrial life.

[Chino]

In some ways, I'm starting to think the climate change talks about CO2 overshadow a more important threat: the oceans ecosystem.

Just read a report today about how it's collapsing and deteriorating quicker than we previously though. CO2 and ocean acidification is but a part of this, but at 450ppm it becomes a serious serious threat.

And I think the "won't" is too strong for the article. Also, the article mentions how ocean circulation may be the more pressing matter, and the melting of the polar ice caps is changing and messing with that ocean current. That melting can be caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere, so I don't think this paper rules out rapid change in any way. However, I couldn't read the paper, so I'm just basing this upon the synopsis and the article.

Yes that is a big deal but when the bolded bit occurs and the methane from the polar ice caps is released, all bets are off.  In other words, actual end-of-world event.  And I'm not just talking end of the human race, I mean the end of terrestrial life.

I wouldn't say that. I think life is going to exist on earth as long as it's core is active and it is still obiting the sun. We have found plenty of life in the most inhabitable places that we could have eever imagined.

[Super Dude]

Maybe, maybe not.  But the runaway greenhouse effect (GP's positive feedback loop) is still a scary possibility.