Not exact matches
Well, the
glacial cycle would just oxidize the soils now left unirrigated, our
great cities would rot releasing hindreds of tons of carbon, the new growth forests might burn off.
There's little doubt that there is a
great deal of polar amplification in the Northern Hemisphere during
glacial - interglacial
cycles.
We see this on shorter timescales in
glacial cycles and the second
great field geology rule is that small things and short time mimics large things and long time.
Only
glacials and interglacials — those pesky 100,000 year odd freeze
cycles the world has been getting for 2.58 million years — have a
greater impact.
Similarily, the significance of 100ppm rise from ~ 180 to ~ 280 in the
glacial cycles is
greater than the significance of 100ppm rise from 280 to 380 we have done now.
Obviously the change over the
glacial cycle is much
greater for the same change in CO2 forcing.
Actually, by the time you approach 200ppmv for CO2, you have already reached the break point in the curve, beyond which additional CO2 has much less impact on the RF — and this is close to the
glacial value — suggesting that CO2 changes do not drive the
glacial cycles (CO2 changes are supposed to amplify T rise during deglaciation, but there is scant evidence for this and the assumption that it did also underlay the IPCC belief — and a
great many references in academic papers give a T degrees C per ppmv CO2 without stating over which range of concentrations this is meant to apply.