Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/31/2009 6:51:49 PM PST by neverdem
It could take less of the greenhouse gas to reach a particular level of warming.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may have been lower in warm eras of the Earth's distant past than once believed, scientists reported this week.
The finding raises concern that carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning may, in the near future, be closer to those associated with ancient hothouse climates.
More immediately, the work brings one line of palaeoclimate evidence — that deduced from ancient soils — into agreement with other techniques for studying past climate.
"It makes a major revision to one of the most popular methods for reconstructing palaeo-CO2," says Dana Royer, a palaeobotanist at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, who was not involved in the work. "This increases our confidence that we have a decent understanding of palaeo-CO2 patterns."
Dirty job In a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1, Dan Breecker, a soil chemist from the University of Texas, Austin, and colleagues report studying modern soils from Saskatchewan to New Mexico2, to determine the conditions under which the mineral calcite forms.
Calcite occurs in limestone and can be produced by the action of carbon dioxide in arid soils. Scientists trying to puzzle out ancient climate conditions often use it as an indicator of amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Previous studies had concluded that calcite formation indicates atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as high as 3,000 to 4,000 parts per million. The new study, however, lowers the calcite-formation threshold in soil to about 1,000 parts per million.
--snip--
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising today, and the new finding suggests that climate might be considerably more sensitive to changes in carbon dioxide than previously thought...
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene-Oligocene climate transition.
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
Dirt can’t possibly be clean.
Actually, during the hothouse eras of prehistory, CO2 levels were often lower than they were during the pre-industrial era, so this news which is made to sound like it demonstrates global warming, actually does the opposite.
Nature was led like a poodle into AGW by Mann and his scamster cohorts, they’re still in deep.
Plant more trees.
It must mean we need cap and trade legislation to control it, and the initial drop is our curbing energy use and our experiments in carbon credits.
As for Venus and Mars, it must mean the data from the probes must be corrected for these abnormalities in temperature. Oh, and it's forbidden for the general public to look at solar data anymore. It might hurt their eyes, and this regulation is for their protection.
Really? I call BS, because today's CO2 is around 0.038% but the Earth's early atmosphere is largely agreed to have been around 10%.
And look how we didn't turn into Venus.
The scaremongers are still shoveling the Manure.
I thought it hasn’t changed in 160 years?
Good point - it is quite possible that there is NO correlation between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperatures!
AGW researcher loads gun, lifts foot high into the atmosphere and fires - OUCH!
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.
Hey! This is probably the last craptastic global warming hoax post for 2009!
Were the Chesapeake, Popigai and Toms River major meteor impact events factored into the Eocene/Oligocen transition data? Time around 35 million years ago.
Well, we do have an experiment going on where we apparently increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and wait to see what happens. 50 to 100 years should provide a good indication. After we correct for the sun and all other drivers, of course.
Math is hard.... eliminate 100% of Man (including what we exhale) and nothing changes.
I am so glad that I have fewer and fewer years left before I leave this existence and move on to the next...
Ignorance may be bliss but it sure is hard to watch.
"We've lied about everything so far...but this time, the models are different so we need less CO2 for a catastrophe!"
F.E.T.E., as The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler would say.
Cheers!
...and Happy New Year.
They will say that warming does produce CO2, but to some extent CO2 also causes warming. Al Gore doesn’t even understand what the so-called “climate scientists” are claiming.
OK, now I have read the second link regarding the Eocene-Oligocene climate transition.
It was definitely immediately subsequent to the major boloid strikes of the 34 to 35 million year ago period. The Chesapeake Meteor and Popigai both left craters 60 miles in diameter, and the Toms River meteor left a crater almost 10 miles in diameter. This was more than enough to cause a nuclear winter type event with the formation of a major Antarctic ice sheet. As to what influence this had on the state of CO2 is not addressed, but since they did not even mention these boloid events in the article it does not make sense to make any major attributions to CO2 and temperature causation.
Now I have read links one and three. Three deals with the 55 million year old thermal maximum, and one mentions both the 34 and 55 million year ago data.
Both articles say that other, perhaps unknown factors also need to be taken into consideration. The third article expresses ignorance of other possible causes of the 55 mya maximum, but seems to me there is a rather strong suggestion that there was a major oceanic methane burp that may have been the culprit. Of course, if there was a huge methane release, what caused that—a huge boloid? We know that 74 thousand years ago Toba volcano had major climate influences.
The sad thing in science is that scientists get so specialized that the atmospheric people do not know what the vulcanolgists know, or the what the boloid trackers know. What can be done to get these people paying attention to each other?
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds The source links the abstract.
As the Nation’s Pulse Races, Obama Can’t Seem to Find His MoDo: “Heck of a job, Barry.”
Our Year of Obama Victor Davis Hanson
Obama and Our Post-Modern Race Problem Shelby Steele
Lying to ourselves: Blindness to Islam ties helps terrorists
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
bump
Or it could be that the two really have nothing to do with each other.
I couldn’t find “Toms River meteor” on Yahoo or Google. What’s up?
Grants for climate change models?
>>>It could take...<<<
Or it could not. *sigh*
The finding raises concern that carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning may, in the near future, be closer to those associated with ancient hothouse climates.
Or it could mean that CO2 has nothing to do with past warming. =he finding of higher temperatures and lower CO2 concentrations is completely at odds with the models.
Thanks for the ping!
The first thing you need to know is when a sentence is totally incomprehensible and subject and verb are a bit hard to define, the author is probably lying.
Calcite is a form of Calcium Carbonate. The formation of Calcite is dependent on many factors. Solubility, PH, Temperature, pressure. None of those factors were addressed.
My source was the book Chesapeake Invader: Discovering America’s Giant Meteorite Crater, by C. Wylie Poag, 1999.
Actually what he was referring to was in Toms Canyon on the NJ continental shelf. Having lived in NJ, my thought was this was an extension of Toms River. “Page 44, Toms Canyon crater, one-fourth the size of the Chesapeake Bay crater, is buried near the head of Toms Canyon, 90 miles east of Atlantic City, NJ. This small crater and ejecta drilled within it and nearby boreholes are the same age as the Chesapeake Bay crater.”
Typical leftist approach to the sciences. State a hypothesis, look for evidence supporting it, reject what doesn’t fit the model and ignore it. Present a plethora of doctored evidence to support the initial hypothesis. As long as it justifies confiscation of property more state control and redistribution of destroyed wealth to the new ruling elites.
The two Asteroid strikes at 35.3 million and 35.7 million years ago never left a signature in the Temperature record within the resolution of the data available of 15,000 years.
The glaciers in Antarctica started forming about 42 million years ago and the significant glaciation did not start until 33.6 million years ago.
So, the Asteroid strikes did not impact the long-term climate and a lag of 2 million years is not possible.
In terms of this study, trying to use ancient soils to estimate CO2 in the past - this method has huge errors/variability and produces Zero ppm estimates very often (ie no plants, no life). The author of the study, Royer, is desperate to rewrite the historical CO2 estimates so that it matches the historical temperature records better. This is just another example.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
Sorry, when I saw Royer’s name, I assumed he was involved in this, but I guess he wasn’t. The method, however, is not reliable.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks gleeaikin and neverdem.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.Snapshot Of Past Climate Reveals No Ice In Antarctica Millions Of Years AgoA snapshot of New Zealand's climate 40 million years ago reveals a greenhouse Earth, with warmer seas and little or no ice in Antarctica, according to research recently published in the journal Geology. The study suggests that Antarctica at that time was yet to develop extensive ice sheets. Back then, New Zealand was about 1100 km further south, at the same latitude as the southern tip of South America -- so was closer to Antarctica -- but the researchers found that the water temperature was 23-25°C at the sea surface and 11-13°C at the bottom. "This is too warm to be the Antarctic water we know today," said Dr Catherine (Cat) Burgess from Cardiff University and lead-author of the paper. "And the seawater chemistry shows there was little or no ice on the planet." These new insights come from the chemical analysis of exceptionally well preserved fossils of marine micro-organisms called foraminifers, discovered in marine rocks from New Zealand. The researchers tested the calcium carbonate shells from these fossils, which were found in 40 million-year-old sediments on a cliff face at Hampden Beach, South Island... "Our work provides another piece of evidence that, in a time period with relatively high carbon dioxide levels, temperatures were higher and ice sheets were much smaller and likely to have been completely absent." The rock sequence from the cliff face covers a time span of 70,000 years and shows cyclical temperature variations with a period of about 18,000 years. The temperature oscillation is likely to be related to the Earth's orbital patterns. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Led? No Nature and the others were the enablers and allowed Mann and the rest to get away with scientific murder.
Bunch of new ones coming for 2010.
***************EXCERPT*******************
The all important question that rises above and before ALL other questions is the one of evidence.
Is there any evidence that carbon dioxide causes major warming?
Love it.
Yes, in the ice cores, representing tens and hundreds of thousands of years, since the recent era of intermittent ice ages began, CO2 lags temperature changes. In the much longer time-scale measurements (hundreds of millions of years), there’s very little correlation. These time scales I alluded to aren’t much useful for showing which led which, but they demonstrate the idiocy of the notion that CO2 is proportional to atmospheric temperature.
CO2 absorbs in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. That's suposed to translate into retained heat. I never heard or read anyhing more than that.
The various figures you mention assume there is no argument about their accuracy, nor for that matter the figures I mntioned. So perhaps the boloid events are closer to some other measured events.
You mention that glaciation in Antarctica started about 42 mya. Other comments refer to later figures, although those could refer to well developed glaciation, not the beginning. Interesting factoid: If you look at the sea mounts leading off from the Hawaii hot spot, you will see that at first they trend east north east, then there is a sharp movement more directly to the north. I believe the age given for this directional change was around 43 mya. So the question, if my memory and their figures are correct, did some major event start the Antarctic glaciacion?
I really hope that more interdisciplinary work will be done on identifying and dating all these different major events—boloid, volcanic, seismic, etc. Only then will it be possible to develop the most accurate theories and come to conclusions that most people will accept.
As a little boy I often tried to convince my mother otherwise.
I think what really happened with the Antarctic glaciation timeline is that:
1) Antarctica was already more-or-less over the South Pole as early as 60 million years ago and a few glaciers developed on the higher mountain ranges particularly about 42 million years ago; but,
2) It was also connected to South America and Australia at the time so that the ocean currents were mixed with mid-latitude/tropical ocean currents in gyres in the Pacific and the Atlantic/Indian Oceans which keep it reasonably warm - still frigid in the Winter but the snow and ice melted in the Summer.
3) About 34 million years ago, enough separation occured between South America and Australia, that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current developed which isolated Antarctica in an extreme polar climate.
4) It rapidly glaciated over after this.
5) About 27 million years ago, some jostling of the small cratons between South America and Antarctica closed off the Antarctic Circumpolar Current again and the glaciers melted back considerably.
6) About 14 million years ago, the Circumpolar Current was re-established and Antarctica glaciated over again.
7) About 2.5 million years ago, the Earth cooled off even more (due to events in the Arctic ocean which are still not explained other than Greenland and the Arctic Archipelago were slowly drifting north), and Antarctica glaciated over even more than previously more-or-less similar to today.
That is my timeline of events and I have spent a lot of time researching this. I could quote about 50 sources but I hate doing that.
Antarctica was also glaciated over between 330 to 290 million years ago, 430 to 420 million years ago and 640 to 600 million years ago when Continental Drift also placed it near the South Pole. It is the unlucky Continent.
So, you obviously grew up to be become an Earth Scientist? ;-)
Thank you for the detailed information. I have a special interest in boloid and volcanic influence on earth history.
Since you have put considerable effort into Antarctic study, I was wondering if you have any thoughts, feelings, conjectures on the apparent thawed state of parts of Antarctica that seem to be shown on the Piri Reis (sp?) map.
Well, there is some research pointing to a large ancient impact crater on Antarctica although it is covered in ice right now so we can’t be sure if it is a real impact or about its age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkes_Land_crater
The Reis map looks like a map of South America. The refence to hot conditions and snakes is probably the Amazon. One issue is the extremely strong west winds and storms that exist once one gets to the southern tip of South America. Year 1500 sailing ships would have been wise to turn back at that point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.