Global Warming Models Lie : Ice Age CO2 Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Not Tied to Pacific Ocean

Ice Age Carbon Mystery: Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Not Tied to Pacific Ocean
www.sciencedaily.com...

After the last ice age peaked about 18,000 years ago, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide rose about 30 percent. Scientists believe that the additional carbon dioxide -- a heat-trapping greenhouse gas -- played a key role in warming the planet and melting the continental ice sheets. They have long hypothesized that the source of the gas was the deep ocean.

But a new study by a University of Michigan paleoclimatologist and two colleagues suggests that the deep ocean was not an important source of carbon during glacial times. The finding will force researchers to reassess their ideas about the fundamental mechanisms that regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide over long time scales.

"We're going back to the drawing board. It's certainly fair to say that we need to have some other working hypotheses at this point," said U-M paleoclimatologist David Lund, lead author of a paper in the journal Nature Geoscience.

"If we can improve our understanding of the carbon cycle in the past, we will be better positioned moving forward as CO2 levels rise due to anthropogenic causes," said Lund, an assistant professor in the U-M Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Lund's co-authors are Alan Mix of Oregon State University and John Southon of the University of California, Irvine.

"Frankly, we're kind of baffled by the whole thing," said Oregon State University paleo-oceanographer Alan Mix, one of the co-authors. "The North Pacific was such an obvious source for the carbon, but it just doesn't match up."

"At least we've shown where the carbon wasn't," Mix said. "Now we just have to find where it was."

Well I guess this is yet another global warming climate model that can be put to rest.
This came out a few days ago also:

Earth's Plant Life 'Recycles' Carbon Dioxide Faster Than Previously Estimated (25%)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So any opinions, comments?

Wheres the Carbon?

reply to post by MasterGemini


I've always said that Lund's paleo-climate "proxies" were nothing more than gimmicks to "game the system" and make the models reflect their foregone-conclusions!

Garbage in, garbage out.

Great find.

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by MasterGemini


A study and a model are two different things, and your topic is misleading.

Understand some basic science before you post such nonsense.

A model is a computer program that tries to calculate a system. For example, a projection of the path of a given hurricane is a computer model.

it is only as good as the information that is put into it.


A study, is an experiment conducted by researchers.

This was a valid study at a very valid university, there are no lies about it.

The amount of CO2 has remained the same, the only thing that has changed is the source.

Now real people interested in science would say: oh that is interesting, then where did all that CO2 come from?

My guess? The melting of ice sheets. Which isn't a vastly different source.

Which real scientists who understand the difference between a study and a model, and did not lie about it, will now look to next to find the source.

They don't make up sensationalist threads to further their own anti GW agendas.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I suggest you read the article. He clearly states most their preconceptions about carbon were WRONG. If you don't even know where something came from or went then how can you justify their models based on where and how carbon is release and stored?

After the last ice age peaked about 18,000 years ago, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide rose about 30 percent. Scientists believe that the additional carbon dioxide -- a heat-trapping greenhouse gas -- played a key role in warming the planet and melting the continental ice sheets. They have long hypothesized that the source of the gas was the deep ocean.

The scientists expected to find that the ventilation rate in the basin slowed during glacial times, allowing carbon dioxide to accumulate in the abyss and depleting atmospheric levels of the gas.

Surprisingly, they found that the ventilation rate during glacial times was roughly the same as it is today, suggesting that the Pacific was not an important reservoir of carbon during glacial times.

"Frankly, we're kind of baffled by the whole thing," said Oregon State University paleo-oceanographer Alan Mix, one of the co-authors. "The North Pacific was such an obvious source for the carbon, but it just doesn't match up."

"At least we've shown where the carbon wasn't," Mix said. "Now we just have to find where it was."

You mad bro?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by MasterGemini

 

A model is a computer program that tries to calculate a system. ... it is only as good as the information that is put into it.
A study, is an experiment conducted by researchers.

This was a valid study at a very valid university, there are no lies about it.

The finding will force researchers to reassess their ideas about the fundamental mechanisms that regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide over long time scales.

Since the fundamental assumptions used in the models are wrong, the models lie.

Understand some basic science before you post such nonsense.

AGW advocates are all-too-quick to blindly support insupportable assumptions. Mind your quote.

jw

reply to post by nixie_nox


The reference to the climate models lying or being incorrect is because they assume a large release of CO2 into the atmosphere from the worlds oceans after a certain amount of warming takes place. This study shows that the assumptions that are being made and applied to the models may not be accurate.

After the last ice age peaked about 18,000 years ago, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide rose about 30 percent. Scientists believe that the additional carbon dioxide -- a heat-trapping greenhouse gas -- played a key role in warming the planet and melting the continental ice sheets. They have long hypothesized that the source of the gas was the deep ocean.

So they may have got it wrong about the source of the carbon dioxide. The 'fact' remains that co2 increased by 30%. They will now look for another source to account for the 30%, thats how science works 'trial and error'. It does no damage to the anthropogenic global warming theory at all. The increase in co2 supports the idea that carbon dioxide raises global temperature, by the very fact that it contributed towards ending the last ice age:p

Earth's Plant Life 'Recycles' Carbon Dioxide Faster Than Previously Estimated (25%)

You mean those trees and plants we have been recklessly destroying on an industial scale for 200 years now? Most of the worlds ancient forests have been decimated by our activities, +25% recycle rate means nothing when the recyclers are dead.

We are losing Earth's greatest biological treasures just as we are beginning to appreciate their true value. Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years.

One and one-half acres of rainforest are lost every second with tragic consequences for both developing and industrial countries.

Rainforests are being destroyed because the value of rainforest land is perceived as only the value of its timber by short-sighted governments, multi-national logging companies, and land owners.

Nearly half of the world's species of plants, animals and microorganisms will be destroyed or severely threatened over the next quarter century due to rainforest deforestation.

Experts estimates that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. That equates to 50,000 species a year. As the rainforest species disappear, so do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. Currently, 121 prescription drugs sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. While 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less that 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists.

Something would have 'tripped' the cooling cycle and reversed it and that something could possibly have been volcanic activity or any of a number of catalysts such as solar activity. All the vegetation trapped under thick ice would decompose on being exposed to the atmosphere releasing a huge amount of carbon dioxide in a relatively short time on a geological scale. IE millenia worth of CO2 in just centuries which would accelerate the warming cycle.

Just a theory and those are cheap. Facts are harder to come by

reply to post by Atzil321


So where do you propose the extra 30% of Carbon Dioxide magically came from?

Who farted?


I am so tired of the AGW crap it is impossible to take them seriously when their models keep failing.