And the Future?.......

 

gapyear.com (2012). The future of travel [online]. Available from: <https://www.gapyear.com/news/163953/the-future-of-travel>. [Accessed 09th January 2016].

Just to look at future situations a little more, as after all, the past is behind us, the present is now, but the future, well that’s a whole blank page.  Trying to predict what will be written on that page is of great importance to all life on the planet and the actions and choices we make today will play out in the future for generations to come. 

You many by now of noted somewhat of a bias to my view. You would not be wrong and although I remain optimistic, I am a self-confessed climate change worrier, I try to remain impartial but as I see it, it is far better to assume worst case scenario and act to limit the effects then to sit back and wait to see what happens. 

I continued looking at paper relating to future situations and came to note a paper by  Schimela et al, (2015) discussing increasing CO₂ in relation to the terrestrial carbon cycle, “feedbacks from the terrestrial carbon cycle significantly affect future climate change” (Schimela et al, 2015), well that got my attention, I read on and according to Schimela et al, (2015) this is among one of the largest and most uncertain feedbacks, but the paper looks at this in relation to the CO₂ effect, which is described as an increase in photosynthesis rates in relation to  increasing CO₂ on terrestrial carbon storage (Schimela et al, 2015).  It would seem that out little green friends (the plants, I have not gone mad and started hoping that E.T is coming to save the world!) are working hard to try to clean up after us.  This effect increases with increased CO₂ and temperature, meaning that in warmer climates we really do need to limit deforestation and look after our green friends. 

Unfortunately, there is a limit to this effect and when this is exceeded the CO₂ effect is no longer able to keep pace as it were, at this point growth rates of CO₂ will increase. 

What I am left considering is the fact that so far all of the paper I have looked at point to ever increasing levels of CO₂ leading to increasing global temperature, so I am left pondering, if the plants are already working hard, how fast will rates increase when they’re no longer able to keep pace?  Again it would seem that in order for nature to help us we must also help it by limiting CO₂ emissions.  But would we see continued warming following a halt to emissions?  This was a question addressed by Frölicheret al, (2014), they comment that many studies have shown that even following an emissions halt there is a high likelihood that for many centuries to follow the global mean surface temperature would not decrease and could in fact increase.

What does this mean for us? Well Salinger(2005) has considered this question too, working on the idea that temperature increase will fall somewhere between 2°C to 4.5°C, Salinger (2005) suggest that we are likely to see extremes of climate and alterations to precipitation such a heavy rains and droughts and predicts unprecedented changes to climate that human settlement has never had to endure.  That all sounds a bit scary, but it does bring me back to my first blog post when I was discussing the book I was reading by Mark Lynas, Six Degrees, Our Future on a Hotter Planet.  It seems to me that all signs point to one thing, reduce CO₂ emissions or be prepared to adapt to the consequences.  But that is just my view and although I am aware that it is a view shared by many, it may not be yours. 

References;

Frölicher, T.L.  Winton, M.  Sarmiento, J.L.  (2014). Continued global warming after CO₂ emissions stoppage. Nature Climate Change. 4, pp.40 – 44

Salinger, M.J. (2005). Climate Variability and Change: Past Present and Future – An Overview.  Climatic Change. 70, pp.9 - 29.

Schimela, D.  Stephens, B.B.  Fishera, J.B.  (2015). Effect of increasing CO₂ on the terrestrial carbon cycle. PNAS. 112, pp.436–441.

‘Blue sky thinking’!

BeckyBendyLegs (2015). Why is the sky blue? [online]. Available from: <http://beckybendylegs.com/why-is-the-sky-blue/>. [Accessed 09th January 2016].

Previously we saw that in order to meet the 2°C target that action should be taken now, reading a little more in to future issues I came across a number of papers discussing such issues.  Booth et al, (2012) use “full coupled climate–carbon cycle model and a systematic method to explore uncertainties in the land carbon cycle feedback” what they found was that the feedbacks were lager that even those estimated by the IPCC, stating that the most important uncertainty was that of photosynthetic metabolism in response to temperature, their study showed these responses to play a key role in future changes (Booth et al, 2012).  So we need to limit temperature increases to minimise the effect to plant metabolism to limit their effect on temperature, but to do this we need to reduce CO₂ emissions. 

Friedlingstein et al, (2014) discuss the growth of such emissions and their implications, they state that these emissions have increased by “2.5% per year on average over the past decade” (Friedlingstein et al, 2014). We are already two thirds of a way through our quota of CO₂ if we are to meet the 2°C target, continuing at the current rate we have less than 30 years left of our quota.  Not very long at all.  The business as usual approach that I touched upon at the start of my blog is just no longer viable.

The business as usual approach would see continued use of fossil fuels but McGlade et al, (2015) suggest that continued unabated use would push us over our target temperature.   They state that if were are to even have a 50% chance of keeping with in our target temperature range, then between 2011 and 2050 the cumulative carbon emissions must not exceed 1,100 giga-tonnes.  Using all of the fossil fuel reserves would push us three times over that limit.  It may be a hard pill to swallow for some, for example to meet the targets over 80% of coal reserves should not be used between 2010 and 2050 (McGlade et al, 2015). 

Maybe ‘business as usual’ needs some ‘blue sky thinking’!

References;

Booth, B.B.  Jones, C.D.  Collins, M.  Totterdell, I.J.  Cox, P.M.  Sitch, S.  Huntingford, C.  Betts, R.A.  Harris, G.R. Lloyd, J.   (2012). High sensitivity of future global warming to land carbon cycle processes. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS. 7, pp.24002 (8pp).

Friedlingstein, P.  Andrew, R.M.  Rogelj, J. Peters, P.G.  Canadell, J.G.  Knutti, R.   Luderer, G.   Raupach, M.R.  Schaeffer, M.  Vuuren, P.D.  Le Quéré, C.  (2014). Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. NATURE GEOSCIENCE. 7, pp.709 - 715.

McGlade, C.  Ekins, P.  (2015). The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 26C. NATURE. 517, pp.187 - 202.

Time to Act.

Having looked at accelerating atmospheric CO₂ in the previous post I decided to move things along a little and consider the challenge that humanity faces to keep warming to a minimal and the impacts of delaying actions.  Thankfully as we saw in an earlier post COP21 is trying to address these issues.  But I found two interesting papers in Nature that looked at just such issues, Peters et al, 2013 and Allen and Stocker, 2014 both discuss such issues in their papers.

Peters et al, 2013 postulate that as emissions track towards the high end of scenarios it is uncertain if warming will stay below the 2°C target and that delay in mitigation will create significant problems in attaining the 2°C target as well as raising the issue of a delay in response to any mitigating actions allow emissions to continue to rise even after implication of mitigating actions.  Put quite simply this means that even if we act now we may still pass our 2°C target.

Allen and Stocker, 2014 look in to the impacts in delaying mitigation actions and discuss the rate of peak warming during mitigation delay.  They find that “peak-committed warming is increasing at the same rate as cumulative CO₂ emissions, about 2% per year, much faster than observed warming, independent of the climate response”, they show in their paper that delays now will require an increased rate of reduction in the future.  Allen and Stocker, 2014, provide an illustrated figure of the emission scenarios (see below, figure 1). They echo the ethos of Peters et al, 2013, that in order to meet the agreed target emissions must be reduced and go on to say that temperature targets alone are insufficient, stating that stronger mitigations should be implemented incorporating other additional climate targets. 



Figure 1 Illustrating emission scenarios. 

Allen, M.R.  Stocker, T.F.  (2014). Impact of delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE. 4, pp.23 - 26.

 

What I take from this is that action is required now so do mind admitting that I am glad that COP21 took place.  In my personal opinion it is a step in the right direction, however I do feel that we still have quite a way to go if we are to even meet the suggested target.  What about you dear reader?  Do you feel the same?

 

 

Figure 1 references as cited by Allen and Stocker, 2014. 

9. Stocker, T. The closing door of climate targets. Science 339, 280–282 (2012).

22. Andres, R. J. et al. A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. Biogeosciences 9, 1845 (2012).

Reference;

Peters, G.P.  Andrew, R.M. Boden, T. Canadell, J.C.  Ciais, P.  Le Quéré, C. Marland, G. Raupach, M.R. Wilson, C.  (2013). The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE. 3, pp.4 - 6.

Allen, M.R.  Stocker, T.F.  (2014). Impact of delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE. 4, pp.23 - 26.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accelerating atmospheric CO2

 

Although the paper I am about to discuss is a little dated (it was published in 2007) it still offers some very insightful information in regard to CO₂ and natural sinks.   The paper by Canadell et al (2007) was published by Proceeding of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America or PANS and was titled “Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks”  It sets out to summarise the current (at the time) situation in regard to CO₂ increases in relation to three increases, two resulting from emissions and the third in relation to “increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO₂ emissions” (Canadell et al, 2007), which they say is evidence that natural carbon since, such as the ocean are becoming less efficient at sequestering anthropogenically produced emissions.  They find that AF observations are larger than initial model projection.     

Their findings, despite being now dated do make for an uncomfortable truth.  They found that from the start of the Industrial Revolution to 2006 CO₂ rose from 280 ppm to 381 ppm.  This they say is the highest it has been during the last 650,000 years (Canadell et al, 2007).  They also showed that emissions from 1850 to 2006 accounted for ≈ 330 PgC and that land use change added a further 158 PgC over this period.

Canadell et al (2007) also considered Gross World Product (GWP) in terms of carbon intensity, which is defined as  F_Foss/GWP, this is a ratio which “refers to  CO₂ emissions required to produce a unit of economic activity at a global scale” (Canadell et al, 2007) this value has been increasing by ≈ 3 % per year since 2000. 

They also looked at natural sinks and atmospheric growth rates of CO_2.  They state that anthropogenic emissions are exceeding sequester rates of natural skins (the worlds clean-up crew can’t keep pace with us).  AF (as discussed earlier) can vary greatly and since 1959 it was 0.0 to 0.8, but these rates have increased and from 2000 to 2006 AF was 0.45 (Canadell et al, 2007).  Canadell et al (2007) go on to say that since 1959, which saw the start of CO₂ monitoring, 2000 to 2007 have seen the most rapid increases in CO_2.

Table 1. Canadell et all (2007) produced this table to summaries the findings of their study in relations the global carbon budget.  Even just by glancing quickly at the ‘Sources’ column it is clear to see an increase from a total mean of 6.7 PgC y^-1  from 1959 to 2006 to a total of 9.1 PgC y^-1  from 2000 to 2006. 

 

Reference;

Canadell, J.G. Le Quéré, C. Raupach, M.R. Field, C.B. Buitenhuis, E.T. Ciais, P. Conway, T. J. Gillett, N.P. Houghton, R.A. Marland, G. (2007). Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. 104, pp.18866–18870.

 

 

 

 

 

A Year of Carbon Dioxide Animated

 

 

Below is a short video produced by Nasa Goddard Flight Centre which was posted on You Tube illustrating a years of CO₂ for the Earth.  It is interesting to see how it moves around the globe and where levels are highest. 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference;

Nasa Goddard (2014). NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2. [online]. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04>. [Accessed 08th January 2016].

Atmospheric CO₂

Time to look more to the present.  CO₂ is a relatively regular feature in the news and something we all often hear discussed in various situations.  With this in mind I found a rather interesting paper by Lacis et al (2010) in Science titled “Atmospheric CO₂: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature” (Lacis et al, 2010).  The paper opens with a nice little introduction explaining to the reader that CO₂ “does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures” (Lacis et al, 2010).  CO₂ along with other noncondensing greenhouse gases such as ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons prevent a collapse of the greenhouse effect due to their radiative forcing effects and account for 25% of the greenhouse effect (Lacis et al, 2010).  Its true’ to say that they are a necessity of life, without the greenhouse effect the planet would become icebound.  But as with most things in life, it’s about just the right balance, too much of a good thing is never good in the long term.  The paper goes on to say the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect is provided by water vapour and cloud due to feedback processes. 

“It often is stated that water vapour is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO₂ contributing less than 2%.  If true, this would imply that changes in atmospheric CO₂ are not important influences on the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO₂ due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change.”  (Lacis et al, 2010). 

 

However Lacis et al (2010) go on to explain that whilst the strongest climate feedbacks are resulted from water vapour in radiative forcing experiments global climate change forcing is not as a result of this.  Their study found CO₂ to be the principle controlling atmospheric gas with respects to controlling the greenhouse effect.  (Are you shocked by this?  I doubt it somehow.)  In relation to our current climate they note that solar irradiance has only negligible impacts.  At the time of publishing in 2010 the current CO₂ level stood at 390 ppm, but an interglacial maximum’s typical levels would be approximately 280 ppm.  CO₂ has a very long residence time of thousands of years, Lacis et al (2010) express their concern at ever increasing levels due to anthropogenic activity by stating “the atmospheric CO₂ control knob is now being turned faster than at any time in the geological record.” (Lacis et al, 2010)

 

NASA (2010). How Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature [online]. Available from: <http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20101014/>. [Accessed 08th January 2016].

Reference;

Lacis, A.A. Schmidt, G.A. Rind, D. Ruedy, R.A. (2010). Atmospheric CO₂: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature. Science. 330, pp.356-359.

Decoupling of atmospheric CO₂ and global temperatures.

In a previous post you may recall that I looked a paper by Retallack (2002) titled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate over the Past 300 Myr”, in it the idea of decoupling of atmospheric CO₂ and global temperatures was touched upon.  As I plan to move on to look at present situations shortly, I felt it may be useful to have a look at the evidence for decoupling.  As a result I came across a paper by Veizer et al (2000) published in Nature titled “Evidence fordecoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon”. 

The paper focuses on the Phanerozoic eon and Veizer et al (2000) present a reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures.  I highly recommend following the link on the paper title and reading it in detail for yourself as I will only be covering the basic details.  It was found that “large oscillations of tropical sea surface temperatures in phase with the cold ± warm cycles, thus favouring the idea of climate variability as a global phenomenon”  (Veizer et al, 2000), however when this data was compared with a mass balance model reconstructing temperature which was produced using atmospheric CO₂ there was a conflict in findings.  In order for the results to be reconciled it would be necessary to assume that CO₂ was “not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable” (Veizer et al, 2000). 

As we have seen previously, it is generally accepted that increases in CO₂ result in increased global temperatures.  So surely it should also follow that lower CO₂ levels in the atmosphere would see lower global temperatures.  The Permo/Carboniferour and Cenozoic icehouse episode follow this idea and show low partial pressures of CO₂ in the atmosphere.  However biochemical models for the late Ordovician/earliest Silurian and late Jurassic/early Cretaceous show high values of CO₂ despite them being classed as icehouse episodes.  Veizer et al (2000) explain that theoretical models resolve this by “advocating the development of permanent high-latitude ice sheets at more than 10 times present-day CO₂ levels have been proposed” (Veizer et al, 2000) and then go on to offer their own alternative interpretation by mean of experimental evidence to “suggest large variations in tropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs; up to 9°C) between the peaks of greenhouse/icehouse modes” (Veizer et al, 2000). 

There are three possible finding suggested as a result of Veizer et al (2000) study, the first is that past CO₂ reconstructions are at least in part incorrect, the second is that for a least two of the icehouse episodes of the Phanerozoic pCO₂ was not the driving force of climatic changes and finally, that climate models are not able to correctly represent past climates as they are calibrated to the present interstadial . 



The Phanerozoic eon. 

Roy Shepherd (2002). Phanerozoic eon [online]. Available from: <http://fossilsandfossils.weebly.com/fossil-periods.html>. [Accessed 08th January 2016].

 

Reference;          

Veizer, J. Godderis, Y. and François, L.M. (2002). Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon. Nature. 408, pp.698-701.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CO₂ responding to infra-red radiation

 

Here's a fun little experiment illustrating CO₂ responding to infra-red radiation resulting in a temperature increase.  Its just a nice little video that illustrates things in a fuss free way. 

 



 

 

Paul Connolly (2016). Why CO2 is affecting global temperature. [online]. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDvjrOwL250>. [Accessed 08th January 2016].

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

 

Earth Atmosphere
Expedition 24 crew member from the International Space (2010). A setting last quarter crescent moon and the thin line of Earth's atmosphere [online]. Available from: <http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-24/html/iss024e013421.html>. [Accessed 07th January 2016]. 

Digging back in to academic papers once more, two that have peaked my attention are papers by Retallack (2002) and Pearson and Palmer(2000). 

Retallack’s paper is titled “CarbonDioxide and Climate over the Past 300 Myr”, it was published by The Royal Society in 2002. The paper is referring to the link between CO₂ levels and global warming, and states that there is good supporting evidence for such a link as established by physicochemical experiments as well as geochemical modelling.   Retallack (2002) states in the paper that there is a high temporal correlation between palaeotemperature maxima and atmospheric CO₂ peaks over the past 300 Myr.  Fossilised stomatal indices were used to assess atmospheric CO₂.  “Oxygen isotope (ᵟ18O) composition of marine biogenic carbonate” (Retallack, 2002) revealed the temperatures.  Retallack (2002) goes on to state that despite a large amount of data to support the idea of coupled temperature and CO₂, there is also an argument for an uncoupling but suggests that could be due to CH₄ episodic releases. 

The paper (Retallack, 2002) also states that an elevation in extinction rates often coincide with high CO₂ and palaeotemperatures for both marine and terrestrial life giving example of such incidents in the mid-Permian, late Permian, the early Triassic and earliest Jurassic to name but a few.  Retallack (2002) concludes that there is a strong link between CO₂ and temperature for the past 300 Myr.   

The paper by Pearson and Palmer(2000) looks at things on slightly smaller time scale, I say that with somewhat of a tongue in cheek tone, as although this is the case, it is still a vast time period covering the last 60 Myr.  Published in 2000 in Nature the paper is titled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations over the past 60 million years”, in order to reconstruct CO₂ concentrations over the past 60 Myr Pearson and Palmer (2000) “use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water”.  They estimate that during the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene concentrations of 2000 p.p.m. for CO₂ were evident with concentrations decreasing to 500 p.p.m. and remaining below this since the early Miocene.  Pearson and Palmer (2000) conclude that whilst there is evidence for a strong link between CO₂ and temperature that in the cases of, as they call it “super greenhouse conditions” (pCO₂ > 1,000p.p.m.) other feedbacks should also be considered such as “tectonic alteration of the ocean basins” (Pearson and Palmer, 2000). 

 

So we again see that evidence suggests a strong link between CO₂ and temperature.  We also get a brief glimpse of just how varied  CO₂ levels can be.  I include a picture of Earth atmosphere as a small way of illustrating the fragility of it, that thin blue line illustrating all that separates our home from the harshness of Space yet at the same time exhibiting incredible robustness.       

 

References;

Pearson, P. N. and Palmer, M.R (2000). Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years. Nature. 406, pp.695 - 699.

Retallack, G.J (2002). Carbon dioxide and climate over the past 300 Myr. The Royal Society. 360, pp.659 - 673.

 

 

 

 

In the Media.

The North Pole. 

Dixon,C.   (2008). The North Pole - April 2008. Photograph. At: Woodborough: Woodborough Farmhouse. http://www.woodboro.co.uk/NorthPole.php

Just as an interesting side note, there have been some higher than normal temperatures seen in the Arctic at the end of December 2015.  A news article published by CBC News on 31^st December 2015 and updated on 4^th January 2015 reports that a weather anomaly has caused temperatures in the region to rise to higher than normal for the time of year.  The report goes on to say that fluctuations in temperatures of between -13 C° to -43 C° would not be uncommon for the region, but that what is uncommon is the temperatures for the region reaching 3 C° to 4 C°.  Meteorologist, Kirk Torneby of Environment Canada was quoted as saying;

“That strong pull of warm air is starting to shut off, I think the warmest temperatures are starting to fizzle out”.

Unfortunately there are no weather station in the North Pole and so temperature predictions are problematic.  But temperature readings are taken by buoys in the Arctic sea ice as well as High Arctic observation stations. 

This post is more of an ‘FYI’ than anything else.  I share mainly to show that even over very small time scales temperature can vary greatly, it also, to me serves to highlight quite nicely how the planets systems do not act individually of each other. I am thinking here specifically of Lovelock's Gaia Theory of course, although his theory has not gone unquestioned, I personally feel it provides a very useful way of considering the planetary systems.

So what is to blame for this anomaly you may ask?  Well the most likely explanation offered by the new report is the El Niño event that is currently underway. 

Reference;

Barton, K.   (2015). Weather anomaly pushing North Pole temperatures above 0 C. [online]. CBC News. Available from: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/weather-anomaly-north-pole-1.3385175>. [Accessed 06th January 2015].

 

 

CO₂ Levels over Phanerozoic Time

 

Another interesting paper I have come across during my reading is by Robert A. Berner and published in Science in 1990, the paper is titled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels over Phanerozoic Time”.    Barner (1990) is discussing how atmospheric CO₂ for the past 570 million years can be calculated by making use of, a new at the time, model by making use of "feedback functions for the weathering of silicate minerals".  Overall Berner (1990) was able to establish that during the Mesozoic and early Palaeozoic CO₂ levels were higher than those of the Permo-Carboniferous and late Cenozoic.  Berner (1990) bases his model on that of the Garrels and Lerman 1984 model of carbon mass balance, Berner’s model is an expanded version using a steady state.

Berner (1990) concludes that if it is assumed that the calculations made and the results which were obtained were correct then it would be fair to expect to see evidence that atmospheric greenhouse effects would result in warmer global climates.  The model also shows that CO₂ levels were at a minimum at corresponding times to that of glaciation periods e.g. lower CO₂ = lower temperatures.

 

Illustration of the Phanerozoic Eon. 

http://samnoblemuseum.ou.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Phanerozoic.jpg

All that being said, are we starting to see the link between CO₂ and global temperatures?  It would seem so, but of course I skim the paper here, just pulling out the basic take home message and one can hardly base an argument on two papers regardless of how far back in Earth’s history they look. 

 

Reference

Berner, R. (1990). Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels over Phanerozoic Time. Science. 249, pp.1382 - 1386.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vostok ice core, Antarctica

As this blog is titled CO₂ and global temperatures – past, present and future, I felt it was time to dig a little into some academic papers.  Firstly looking at a selection of papers in relation to past CO₂ and temperature.  There is no particular structure to this.  I have picked papers that I found interesting from a number of journals.  The first of which is a paper published in Nature way back in June 1999.  The paper by Petit et al (1999) is titled “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica”.  I don’t mind admitting that I have a real interest in Antarctica and find the information gained from ice cores fascinating.  As this is a blog I shall forego too much detail and instead summaries the papers basic points to give you a general over view. 
 

Image illustrating the location of the Vostok Core Site.  http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/antartica_ice_core_stations.jpg

Petit et al (1999) open by explaining a little about the late Quaternary period which was the past one million years and how the period saw a number of large glacial-interglacial cycles of approximately 100,000 years.  They then moves on to ice cores themselves, informing the reader that ice cores can offer information of palaeoclimate series such as temperature and aerosol fluxes and even past atmospheric trace-gas composition due to entrapped air inclusions.  Petit et al (1999) state that there is a strong correlation between Antarctic temperatures, CO₂ and CH₄ concentration in the atmosphere.  They go on to state that “This discovery suggests that greenhouse gases are important as amplifiers of the initial orbital forcing and may have significantly contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes. The Vostok ice cores were also used to infer an empirical estimate of the sensitivity of global climate to future anthropogenic increases of greenhouse gas concentrations”. 



Image of the Vostok Ice Core.  http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02133/ice-core_2133381i.jpg

Petit et al (1999) conclude that as a result of the information gained from the Vostok ice core it can be said that for the past 420 kyr our planets climate has undergone changes to its state that fall within stable bounds.  That is to say that for the last four glacial terminations a pattern of temperature, CO₂ and CH₄ rises are recorded in the ice core.  They conclude by stating that the results they obtained “support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial–interglacial change”. 

 

Reference
Petit, J.R. Jouzel, J. Raynaud, D. Barkov, N.I. Barnola, J.M. Basile, I. Bender, M. Chappellaz, J. Davisk, M. Delaygue, G. Delmotte,M. Kotlyakov, V.M. Legrand, M. Lipenkov, V.Y. Lorius, C. Pe´ pin, L. Ritz, C. Saltzmank, E. Stievenard, M. (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature. 399, pp.429 - 436.

COP21 – What was it all about?

COP21 (2015). COP21 Communication KIt Twitter Banner [online]. Available from: <http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/presse/communication-kit/>. [Accessed 05/01/2016].

Just as a nice little follow on, as I mentioned COP21 in my post about carbon emissions in Malawi, I thought it may be useful to just pop a short post up about COP21. 

COP21 was the United Nations Conference on Climate Change.  It took place in Paris, France from 30^th November to 12 December 2015.  The conference was held in order to respond to a warming atmosphere “due to greenhouse gas emissions by human activity”.

As a result 168 countries have set out plans to reduce emissions.  The agreement sets a target of below 2°C raise in temperatures and establishes an aim of 1.5°C.  Even with the newly published actions by the 168 countries it is estimated that temperatures may still rise by between 2.7°C to 3°C.  For this reason COP21 contributions will be reviewed in 2020 with an aim of carbon neutrality being achieved in the second half of the century.

Just as Malawi were seeking COP21 financial assistance to implement their stove scheme, so too will other poorer and developing nations be seeking financial assistance to fund projects or adapt to climate change impacts.  From 2020 $100 billion will be required on a yearly basis to assist with this. 

The financing will come in the form of loans and donations.  With industrialised nations funding poorer countries.  On 22^nd April the agreement will be open for signing by the participating countries.

The COP21 agreement is very important if mankind is to tackle greenhouse gas emissions with a view to reducing them.  On a personal note, I do so hope that this agreement has the intended out come.  As I said before, the business as usual approach is no longer viable, but action must be taken by all humanity in order for it to be a success.  

Arnaud Bouissou (2015). MEDDE/SG COP21 [online]. Available from: <http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/>. [Accessed 05/01/2016].

Reference
United Nations Conference on Climate Change [online]. (2015). Available from: <http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/more-details-about-the-agreement/>. [Accessed 05/01/2016].