CO2 'drove end to last ice age'

[Aurora]

BBC Science & Environment - 04/04/12

A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The finding is based on a very broad range of data, including even the shells of ancient tiny ocean animals.

A paper describing the research appears in this week's edition of Nature.

The team behind the study says its work further strengthens ideas about global warming.

"At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260; and today we're at 392," explained lead author Dr Jeremy Shakun.

"So, in the last 100 years we've gone up about 100 ppm - about the same as at the end of the last ice age, which I think puts it into perspective because it's not a small amount. Rising CO2 at the end of the ice age had a huge effect on global climate."

The study covers the period in Earth history from roughly 20,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Article continues ...

[woodburner]

Rising CO2 at the end of the ice age had a huge effect on global climate.

And without it we wouldn't be here. Now, will people stop saying any change must be bad?

[clv101]

And without it we wouldn't be here. Now, will people stop saying any change must be bad?

Urm, for a complex civilisation that's spent thousands of years specialising itself to a particular climate, change, any change is very likely to be bad!

[woodburner]

There are peoples who live in the arctic, the deserts of Mongolia, the deserts of the tropics, the rain forests, various mountain regions, and temperate continental and maritime climates. All very different, yet people are there. Your statement that any change must be bad is a matter of belief, not fact.

[JohnB]

There are peoples who live in the arctic, the deserts of Mongolia, the deserts of the tropics, the rain forests, various mountain regions, and temperate continental and maritime climates. All very different, yet people are there. Your statement that any change must be bad is a matter of belief, not fact.

But there aren't getting on for 70 million of them living on a smallish island, with homes that are complex to maintain in the current climate, a transport system that falls apart with an inch or two of snow, a fragile just in time food distribution system and a complex economy, all of which have been created to work with our current conditions. That lot won't adapt overnight.

[clv101]

There are peoples who live in the arctic, the deserts of Mongolia, the deserts of the tropics, the rain forests, various mountain regions, and temperate continental and maritime climates. All very different, yet people are there. Your statement that any change must be bad is a matter of belief, not fact.

Just because humans can live over a wide range of extremes tells us nothing about a particular human's (and their community, country etc) ability to adapte to change. The more complex the system the less flexible it is and our systems are so very complex.

[woodburner]

Sorry, I didn't realise you were being parochial. I still don't see change as necessarily bad. I don't see 70 million on a small island as good, so something happening which reduces the numbers (and something will happen) would be good. The present population is unsustainable.

[biffvernon]

It is likely that as the planet warms the British Isles remains with a benign climate for longer than many other regions. I would expect that we will have an immigration pressure and our population will rise considerably while that of northern Africa and southern Europe declines.

But that's just the early stages of global warming. Once the positive feedbacks make their presence felt and we head towards a return of end-Permian conditions when 90% of fossil forming creatures went extinct the true face of change will be revealed.

[hodson2k9]

There are peoples who live in the arctic, the deserts of Mongolia, the deserts of the tropics, the rain forests, various mountain regions, and temperate continental and maritime climates. All very different, yet people are there. Your statement that any change must be bad is a matter of belief, not fact.

But there aren't getting on for 70 million of them living on a smallish island, with homes that are complex to maintain in the current climate, a transport system that falls apart with an inch or two of snow, a fragile just in time food distribution system and a complex economy, all of which have been created to work with our current conditions. That lot won't adapt overnight.

To be fair, by the time climate change starts having a serious affect, i excpect our present system will have undergone massive change anyway.

I fully anticapate, climate change to add considerable problems to already exsiting problems but just like with PO know one really has the foggiest whats going to happen.

[UndercoverElephant]

I fully anticapate, climate change to add considerable problems to already exsiting problems but just like with PO know one really has the foggiest whats going to happen.

Unfortunately that is becoming less and less true with each passing month. While most of the world is waking up to the fact we're facing a global economic/monetary collapse and that peak oil has already happened, the warnings from the climate scientists just keep on getting worse. There's no good news coming in on the climate front. It's all bad.

Unless something drastic happens quite soon to change the direction industrialised civilisation is heading in (and it might....) then the warming we cause with greenhouse emissions is going to trigger a series of positive feedback mechanisms that lead to at least a 6 or 7 degree average global rise, and maybe even more. I'd personally say the probability of this happening is now over 80% and rising.

I will make another prediction: at some point within the next 30 years, humans will decide upon a last ditch attempt to geo-engineer the climate. We will attempt to use technology to deliberately cool the atmosphere. This will be a very dangerous thing to try, but we'll do it anyway because the alternative of not doing anything will look even more dangerous.

[hodson2k9]

I fully anticapate, climate change to add considerable problems to already exsiting problems but just like with PO know one really has the foggiest whats going to happen.

Unfortunately that is becoming less and less true with each passing month. While most of the world is waking up to the fact we're facing a global economic/monetary collapse and that peak oil has already happened, the warnings from the climate scientists just keep on getting worse. There's no good news coming in on the climate front. It's all bad.

Unless something drastic happens quite soon to change the direction industrialised civilisation is heading in (and it might....) then the warming we cause with greenhouse emissions is going to trigger a series of positive feedback mechanisms that lead to at least a 6 or 7 degree average global rise, and maybe even more. I'd personally say the probability of this happening is now over 80% and rising.

I will make another prediction: at some point within the next 30 years, humans will decide upon a last ditch attempt to geo-engineer the climate. We will attempt to use technology to deliberately cool the atmosphere. This will be a very dangerous thing to try, but we'll do it anyway because the alternative of not doing anything will look even more dangerous.

You paint a very bleak picture UE

As for geo-engineering i would say we have no other alternative but try it, as i really dont see us limiting our carbon emissions. Not by any substantial amount as to impact the already under way warming of the globe.

Seems once again along with the PO situation (fracking etc), we will put all our faith and hope in technology to solve our problems, instead of addressing the underlying problems of our unsustainable fossil fuel addiction .

[woodburner]

I will make another prediction: at some point within the next 30 years, humans will decide upon a last ditch attempt to geo-engineer the climate. We will attempt to use technology to deliberately cool the atmosphere.

Cue for a government minister to suggest we all leave our fridge doors open.

[biffvernon]

As for geo-engineering i would say we have no other alternative but try it, as i really dont see us limiting our carbon emissions. Not by any substantial amount as to impact the already under way warming of the globe.

Geo-engineering first requires a much better understanding of the climate system than we have, or are likely to have for a good while.

And it does nothing for ocean acidification - in fact that problem gets worse if it allows us to think we can carry on emitting CO2.

No, our best hope is a peak-oil induced economic collapse.

[hodson2k9]

As for geo-engineering i would say we have no other alternative but try it, as i really dont see us limiting our carbon emissions. Not by any substantial amount as to impact the already under way warming of the globe.

Geo-engineering first requires a much better understanding of the climate system than we have, or are likely to have for a good while.

And it does nothing for ocean acidification - in fact that problem gets worse if it allows us to think we can carry on emitting CO2.

No, our best hope is a peak-oil induced economic collapse.

Yes well thats going to happen anyway isn't it, theres no hope about it.

If UE is correct though then that still probably wont be enough, so geo-engeenring will no doubt be used.

I dont really see how it will enable us to carry on emitting more CO2 though as PO should deal with that one. I see it more being used in a desperate attempt to slow down the warming, not to allow BAU to continue (not that it can anyway).