Planet 'emergency' 55 million years ago was global warming: study

AFP ^ | 04/26/07

[cogitator]

Yes. I read it 6 years ago. It’s still wrong. (Especially about the Mauna Loa CO2 curve and the solubility of CO2 in seawater.)

[dynoman]

Have you talked to the author about it?

[dynoman]

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III

This study raises some interesting points;

"The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (-240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."

"This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. "

The Caillon team paper goes on to mention a delay of 800 years "seems to be a reasonable time period to transition from an initial Antartic temperature increase into a CO2 atmospheric increase though oceanic processes". The mechanism might be "a change in vertical ocean mixing", consistent with "a process that involves the deep ocean as its mixing time is close to the observed 800 year lag".

They admit temperature change does lead CO2 change just as the graphs clearly show during some of the deglaciation periods.

They then go on to say things like "sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. "

Ok an "idea", what's that? The absolute objective scientific truth?

"The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, "

"May"?? What's that, the absolute objective scientific truth?

"Initial orbital forcing"?? What's that? Temperature increasing first?

One more thing the Caillon paper states is that the the 800 year lag cannot rule out any of these mechanisms -"vertical ocean mixing, sea-ice cover changes, or a biological mechanism such as atmospheric dust flux or ocean productivity" - as having sole control of CO2 outgassing.

"Sole control of CO2 outgassing", how about that?

Team Caillon doesn't really know what's going on for sure.

[cogitator]

I haven't talked to the author -- I don't know how much point there'd be in that. I'm an informed layman. He's an emeritus professor (of Mechanical Engineering) at OSU. He, and a few other people, totally overestimate the role of CO2 solubility in oceans that are changing temperature. This is discussed and referenced in my profile.

Here's a reference for you, Lucky 13 in point #5:

The lag between temperature and CO2

Good read, and also the comments. Have a good weekend. I'm glad you're interested in this subject.

[CMAC51]

But wait a minute. Al Gore tells me that even though today, volcanos emit CO2 and other gasses in far greater volume than any other activity on earth, the gasses from the volcanos are different and don’t cause global warming.

Excuse my state of confusion.

[null and void]

Why? For quoting Jesus?

I didn't know Jesus wrote the Old Testament...

[dynoman]

I was reading the comments at link for

“12. 800-year CO2 lag explained (a “confirming” resource)”

The comments show the authors point is not cut in stone and probably will not be for some time and thus is not a “confirming” resource IMO.

I’ve e-mailed Essenhigh, he is very easy to talk to, if you think he is wrong it might make for an interesting discussion. I read his article long ago too and have never seen his point “water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2” refuted anywhere.

I’d believe him over Al Gore anyday.

You have a good weekend too.

[cogitator]

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

I’d believe him over Al Gore anyday.

We have to be cautious, when attempting to evaluate scientific truth or falsity, not to lean toward those arguments which may merely provide that which we want or need to believe, rather than that which is accurate.

[dynoman]

You are right and your advice includes the article at the link.

It is far from settled as reading the comments shows.

I’ll forward the link to Essenhigh and see what he says.