March 19, 2003
OOPS, NEVER MIND:
Bubbles prompt climate-change rethink: Argon traces hint that carbon dioxide did not lead life out of the freezer, but followed. (TOM CLARKE, 14 March 2003, Nature)Carbon dioxide certainly warms our planet, but it might not turn on the heat, reveals a new analysis of ancient Antarctic ice."Our data suggest that the warming came first, then carbon dioxide increased," says Jean Jouzel of the Pierre-Simon Laplace Institute in Gif-sur-Yvette, France1. Something else — probably extraterrestrial — got the warming going, his team concludes.
Aside from water vapour, carbon dioxide is the major warming influence on our planet. But it's hard to work out which comes first: a rise in carbon dioxide levels or a slight warming. Why? Because even a slight temperature hike increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, through its effects on forests and oceans.
Pioneering a new technique, Jouzel's team has probed air bubbles trapped in 240,000- year-old ice laid down as snow when the Earth was warming up at the end of a massive ice age.
They compared the ratio of two forms of the atmospheric gas argon in the bubbles, and looked at their carbon dioxide content. The argon ratio changes relative to the temperature of the air at the time it was trapped, the team argues.
They saw a temperature rise, followed by greater warming caused by rising carbon dioxide levels, that tallied well with evidence from the surrounding ice and other climate records. "We were surprised to find that these indicators agreed," says Jouzel.
This is the kind of scientific uncertainty upon which the Kyoto accords are based. Yet folks like Tom Daschle amd Tom Friedman continue to insist that the kind of unilateralism we demonstrated by not following the herd over the cliff has earned us the justified enmity of the rest of the world. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 19, 2003 3:15 PM
This finding isn't anything new. I don't have the link handy, but I've seen data that shoes this has been the trend for the last 10,000 years or so. It held through the 20th century as well - most of the rise in temperatures took place in the first half of the century, and the rise in carbon dioxide happened in the second half of the century.
Logically, higher temperatures, especially in colder climates, should be beneficial to plant growth. It should then follow that you would see higher levels of carbon dioxide.
Tom Daschle, along with 94 other senators (with no one voting against), passed a resolution against Kyoto as it was finally adopted.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 19, 2003 4:59 PMOnly a French scientist would be surprised, I guess. At least he was honest enough to look at the numbers.
Way back in the '80s, climate theoreticians were publishing articles with titles like "Can Carbon Dioxide Warm the Atmosphere?"
Carbon dioxide is the limiting nutrient in most plant ecosystems, so in general the more CO2, the greener. Many statements about climate would be disputed, but there is no one who disputes that CO2 is important as a limiting nutrient. However, I have never met an environmentalist who knew this fact.
I'm guessing the E. is Greg E is not for Easterbrook
Harry - if you needed a little more confirmation, Easterbrook spells his first name with two g's at the end (i.e. Gregg).
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at March 20, 2003 11:24 AM