Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[Trakar]

I won't argue a paper I haven't read, but the concept of long-free pathways vs short-free pathways is not, in itself, dependent upon what re-absorbs the CO2 emitted photons, it is that it alters the shortest mean free-path to exiting the earth's environment for the surface emitted thermal IR. Lengthening the mean free-path extends the persistence of that energy in the system and increases the likelihood of it being absorbed and re-emitted by something else in the environment adding still more length to the mean free-path and increasing the residence of the energy.

Here. A formal discussion on the mean free path. I am afraid that argument doesn't hold up as a mechanism for warming either.

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

This paper is a joke.
It has never been published in any mainstream journal, for obvious and apparent reasons, it is littered with unsupported assertions and errors. arguing an unpublished fringe pseudoscience monograph by a retired biologist who is trying to BS about his quantum quakery confusions regarding LoTD is not a path I am interested in engaging upon.

 

[westwall]

Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases. We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.

And what happened during the PETM? I'll let wiki explain it....

A bit of topic stray, but definitely relevent and even essential to the proper understanding of why AGW topics are more than just a political debate in disguise. Wiki is problematic in itself, not that it is not handy for messageboard reference, but as a primary source it is never any better than the 10s to 100s of often "non" and "un"qualified contributors that happen to shape the information on its pages. It's a good place to start searches when you are looking at a topic, but it is a very poor place to end a search when looking at any topic. That said, we can look at what it says...



Technically, these radiations occurred as climate change killed off, or back, the dominant species successfuly competing and managing within the existent ecosystems. As these dominant species are unable to demonstrate the same dominant success in the changing environments. Species that can more rapidly adapt gradually replace those that can't and variate to fill vacated niches. Any time you see points of rapid evolutionary radiation, you are looking at periods of time where some force or factor is stressing the environment. Mild, temperate, stable, some might even use the term "comfortable," environments are rare in the geologic history of our planet.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26] – which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]"

This section is extremely shaky and filled with much weakly supported speculation rather than the more general and compelling mainstream understandings. Broad and general "die-backs" need only a few significant extinctions at the base of foodchains to make major changes in existant biosystems. Unfortunately, many people tend to perceive "extinction events" as only occurring when there are huge net losses of species; this understanding excludes most natural extinction events where the actual net loss of species is low as you have high losses of species being offset by high levels of radiation in other species.

This is more common in natural climate change events which are gradual enough that mobility and natural variation can filter specie traits enough to encourage adaptation and evolution. Fortunately, neither adaptation nor evolution will allow a lobster to accomodate the cook-pot.

So, in a nutshell, certain species of forams suffered very high extinction rates. Different species on the other hand did very well. Mammals did exceptionally well and contrary to the incessant nonsense about heat killing the opposite is true. Warmth allowed plants to grow well and that allowed fauna to do well.

How do you explain that?

Paleocene

The issue isn't so much "how", but rather, "what" it is you expect me to explain? I don't know where you get the idea that I or anyone else here (with possibly one or two apparent exceptions) is arguing that AGW is going to turn the planet into Arrakis, though spice sounds rather nice! What we are saying is that in an era where humanity has already had dramatic ecosystem impact and instituted planet-wide die-backs and die-offs, the additional environmental stressors brought on by AGW climate change should not be ignored nor discounted. Likewise adaptation and motility advantages are more likely benefit species we consider pests and nuisances than species we prefer for pleasure and profit. If viable open-air agricultural lands decrease significantly our own species may well be one of the ones in die-back, but frankly, I'm more concerned about the long term economic impacts to our society and culture, than I am the reversal of our specie's population explosion.

I agree with you on wiki as a source but it is the site of preference for the majority of AGW supporters. No doubt that is due to what's his noses constant editing of any and all climate reports that were posted. It must have been his full time job. They finally booted him off but i hear he still lurks and falsify's reports to this very day.

As far as your points go, the forams that died could have died due to many causes. Anoxia is most likely in my mind. It seems to be a common problem with benthic dwellers through the aeons. Additionally I absolutely agree with you that stressors are the primary drivers of evolution. The claim that we are currently in a mass extinction event is quite ridiculous however, 20,000 new species discovered in the last 5 years alone belie that tale.

Is evolution happening? Of course it is. Evolution is allways happening. And it usually happens in the temperate zones. That is where the "action is" if you like. Equatorial and arctic regions are fairly stable thus very little stress is introduced into the biosphere to drive evolutionary change.

The temperate zones are just the opposite. They are allways undergoing some form of trauma and that pushes evolution right along.

Your comments about the conclusions being shakey is only in regards climatology. Geologists and paleontologists have a much better handle on the events of the past and the conclusions square quite clearly with observed reality obtained from the fossil record.
The computer models are nowhere near reality in this area. Nowhere.

As far as your final point, history once again tells us that warmth is good. The written record (Pliny and others) is very clear that the Roman Warming Period was warmer than the present day and even if it were a localised event (most peer reviewed literature ((only climatologists say it wasn't)) says it was global) the effects were profound and universally beneficial. Roman civilisation began because the climate was warm and static.

Conversely, Roman culture was on the wane by the 400's and the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe helped kill off the western Roman Empire.

 

[westwall]

Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases. We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.

What is the measuring device that shows beyond any question that the CO2 rose before the Temperature rose?

Radioassay analysis indicates that the initiation of the PETM is marked by an abrupt decrease in the Carbon 13 proportion of marine and terrestrial sedimentary carbon, which is consistent with the rapid addition of >1500 gigatons of Carbon-13 depleted carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide and/or methane, into the hydrosphere and atmosphere. as the basaltic magma eruptions associated with the spreading apart of the north atlantic immediately prior to global thermal effects. These flows occurred primarily in the 10-20k years prior to the beginning of the PETM and the first 10ky or so after the start of PETM conditions. Of course, once the warming began, other sequestered sources of carbon began adding their stores of carbon to the atmosphere as well.

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/LIPS/storey07.pdf



There are numerous factors that contributed to temperature rises and falls, but CO2 levels are one of the primary agencies in establishing and maintaining surface temperatures on our planet.

If the content of GHG in the air is the driving factor and the increase in temperature continues driven by the GHG and the feedback effect of increasing GHG's is more GHG's, how does the temperature EVER reduce from a peak?

once short term environmental sinks and sources have emitted their stores of carbon, they cease being sources. After temperature equilibrates CO2 levels are slowly lowered through fresh exposures of granite to the atmosphere (mountain building and weathering), in this case, remember the time frame of this earlier discussion, we have the collision of the Indian subcontinent into the belly of Asia pushing up the Himalayans, the intrusion of Africa pushing up the Alps and pinching what will become Greece into the fracturing Asian and European boundaries, and let's not forget the N. American plate riding up the Pacific plate creating the Rockies and coastal ranges west, that's a whole lotta mountain building episodes. And generally, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop much below 300ppm and we start getting temperatures cool enough to start building year round icecaps at higher latitudes and altitudes. Much below 250ppm and those latitude and altitude boundaries begin creeping downward; much above 350ppm and the ice at even high latitude and altitude begins disappearing.

Since the PETM was about 14 degrees C warmer than now, is this an appropriate parallel to the world we now live in? There wasn't a glacier on the planet at that time near sea level.

Actually, PETM max is generally considered to have been between 5-7º C warmer than late 20th century average.

There is zero empirical evidence to support that statement.

 

[westwall]

Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases. We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.

What is the measuring device that shows beyond any question that the CO2 rose before the Temperature rose?

Radioassay analysis indicates that the initiation of the PETM is marked by an abrupt decrease in the Carbon 13 proportion of marine and terrestrial sedimentary carbon, which is consistent with the rapid addition of >1500 gigatons of Carbon-13 depleted carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide and/or methane, into the hydrosphere and atmosphere. as the basaltic magma eruptions associated with the spreading apart of the north atlantic immediately prior to global thermal effects. These flows occurred primarily in the 10-20k years prior to the beginning of the PETM and the first 10ky or so after the start of PETM conditions. Of course, once the warming began, other sequestered sources of carbon began adding their stores of carbon to the atmosphere as well.

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/LIPS/storey07.pdf



There are numerous factors that contributed to temperature rises and falls, but CO2 levels are one of the primary agencies in establishing and maintaining surface temperatures on our planet.

If the content of GHG in the air is the driving factor and the increase in temperature continues driven by the GHG and the feedback effect of increasing GHG's is more GHG's, how does the temperature EVER reduce from a peak?

once short term environmental sinks and sources have emitted their stores of carbon, they cease being sources. After temperature equilibrates CO2 levels are slowly lowered through fresh exposures of granite to the atmosphere (mountain building and weathering), in this case, remember the time frame of this earlier discussion, we have the collision of the Indian subcontinent into the belly of Asia pushing up the Himalayans, the intrusion of Africa pushing up the Alps and pinching what will become Greece into the fracturing Asian and European boundaries, and let's not forget the N. American plate riding up the Pacific plate creating the Rockies and coastal ranges west, that's a whole lotta mountain building episodes. And generally, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop much below 300ppm and we start getting temperatures cool enough to start building year round icecaps at higher latitudes and altitudes. Much below 250ppm and those latitude and altitude boundaries begin creeping downward; much above 350ppm and the ice at even high latitude and altitude begins disappearing.

Since the PETM was about 14 degrees C warmer than now, is this an appropriate parallel to the world we now live in? There wasn't a glacier on the planet at that time near sea level.

Actually, PETM max is generally considered to have been between 5-7º C warmer than late 20th century average.

Some estimates of the high latitude arctic ocean temps were in the 23C range. If that is true the equatorial temps would have been much higher. That would elevate the average global temp to around 11C higher than today.

 

[Trakar]

Some estimates of the high latitude arctic ocean temps were in the 23C range. If that is true the equatorial temps would have been much higher. That would elevate the average global temp to around 11C higher than today.

Not reputable estimates that I am aware of, but I'd be happy to review your sources.

Most mainstream sources hit between 5-7º C above late 20th Century global average temp (for global mean temp currently of about 15º C). That's roughly ~20º C. A few speculative model studies indicate the polar region before the PETM might have had an average temperature of around 18º C (substantially warmer than today) and it increased to ~23º C average during the PETM. THis is one aspect of the PETM that makes it significantly different than modern warming. The general climate was already quite warm before the PETM event occurred. The PETM Earth warmed more evenly than our modern ice-age world where the polar regions are already experiencing 5-7º C of warming while the lower latitudes haven't reacted much yet to the 1-2º C of global temperature change we have so far experienced. Now its entirely possible that I am being too conservative in the science sources that I consider reliable in this regard, and nature may well throw in some tipping point issues of her own that could indeed shift our modern temps up to the >25º C mean range, but I sincerely hope that this is not in our species' near term (next few centuries) future.

 

[code1211]

What is the measuring device that shows beyond any question that the CO2 rose before the Temperature rose?

Radioassay analysis indicates that the initiation of the PETM is marked by an abrupt decrease in the Carbon 13 proportion of marine and terrestrial sedimentary carbon, which is consistent with the rapid addition of >1500 gigatons of Carbon-13 depleted carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide and/or methane, into the hydrosphere and atmosphere. as the basaltic magma eruptions associated with the spreading apart of the north atlantic immediately prior to global thermal effects. These flows occurred primarily in the 10-20k years prior to the beginning of the PETM and the first 10ky or so after the start of PETM conditions. Of course, once the warming began, other sequestered sources of carbon began adding their stores of carbon to the atmosphere as well.

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/LIPS/storey07.pdf



There are numerous factors that contributed to temperature rises and falls, but CO2 levels are one of the primary agencies in establishing and maintaining surface temperatures on our planet.



once short term environmental sinks and sources have emitted their stores of carbon, they cease being sources. After temperature equilibrates CO2 levels are slowly lowered through fresh exposures of granite to the atmosphere (mountain building and weathering), in this case, remember the time frame of this earlier discussion, we have the collision of the Indian subcontinent into the belly of Asia pushing up the Himalayans, the intrusion of Africa pushing up the Alps and pinching what will become Greece into the fracturing Asian and European boundaries, and let's not forget the N. American plate riding up the Pacific plate creating the Rockies and coastal ranges west, that's a whole lotta mountain building episodes. And generally, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop much below 300ppm and we start getting temperatures cool enough to start building year round icecaps at higher latitudes and altitudes. Much below 250ppm and those latitude and altitude boundaries begin creeping downward; much above 350ppm and the ice at even high latitude and altitude begins disappearing.

Since the PETM was about 14 degrees C warmer than now, is this an appropriate parallel to the world we now live in? There wasn't a glacier on the planet at that time near sea level.

Actually, PETM max is generally considered to have been between 5-7º C warmer than late 20th century average.

Some estimates of the high latitude arctic ocean temps were in the 23C range. If that is true the equatorial temps would have been much higher. That would elevate the average global temp to around 11C higher than today.

Making the cause effect connection seems to assume that the cause is the rising GHG's and the effect is the rising temperatures.

If the the question concerns establishing a cause, then this becomes circular logic, does it not?

That aside, though, the difference in the timing of CO2 being the effect or the cause is a matter of hundreds of years measured by a device reaching millions of years into the past. Does this method isolate the rise of temperature from the rise of CO2 and prove conclusive ly that one preceded the other?

The link that I provided showed that the prevailing temperature before the PETM was about 10 or 12 degrees warmer than today rising another few degrees during the PETM. It also says that it is a conservative estimate of the temperature rise.

Do you have a link to show the relatively small 5 to 7 degrees that you cite?

 

[wirebender]

so you are coming around. you admit CO2 slows down energy loss but 'not appreciably'.

IR passes through a CO2 molecule at the same speed it was going when it encountered the molecule. There is no slowing down.

if we could just get you from stating that the second law of thermodynamics stops CO2 molecules from randomly ejecting photons, some towards Earth, then I for one would be happy.

Again with the lies and misrepresentation of what I have said. I never claimed anything like second law prevents a molecule from ejecting a photon. Why do you find that you must lie? Or is it that you have failed so grossly to understand what I have explained to you in such simple terms.

As I have said, CO2 can emit all the photons towards the surface of the earth it wants, but not even one will ever reach the surface. The energy that the photon represents will be expended in opposition to the EM field of greater magnitude being propagated away from the earth.

 

[wirebender]

Your understanding of LOTD is flawed. You do not get to arbitrairly allocate "objects;" electrons in low energy states about the atoms in surface material will absorb an appropriate frequency photon regardless of the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "surface" object, or the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "atmosphere" object that emitted that photon.

My understanding is not flawed. The law is stated in explicit and absolute terms. If you understand it to mean something other than what it says, then it is your understanding that is flawed. It is not possible for energy to flow from a cooler object to a warmer object. If it were, perpetual motion would be commonplace.

Again, primarily an issue of flawed understandings. the mean free path (the average distance that photon can travel before interaction with absorptive atmospheric atoms or particles) of a ghg relevent wavelength IR photon, in the lower atmosphere is on the order of meters. That is why most energy transfer in our atmosphere occurs via convection rather than radiation transfer.

I am not sure what you believe that you said has to do with what I said, but if you believe that a CO2 molecule can absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule thus setting the stage for CO2 to delay IR from exiting the atmosphere, I am afraid that it is you who is laboring under the misunderstanding.

 

[wirebender]

This paper is a joke.
It has never been published in any mainstream journal, for obvious and apparent reasons, it is littered with unsupported assertions and errors. arguing an unpublished fringe pseudoscience monograph by a retired biologist who is trying to BS about his quantum quakery confusions regarding LoTD is not a path I am interested in engaging upon.

Considering the degree to which you warmist and luke warmers misunderstand the science, it is not surprising at all that you fail to grasp the truth when you see it. And considering the corrupt state of pal review within the field of climate science, arguing that a paper has not been published in a mainstream journal is simply absurd. In fact, today anything that gets published in a mainstream journal is suspect.

Perhaps you failed to note his appreciation:

"The author is grateful to Dr. Jonathan M. Walsh, PhD in mathematics"

Further the author states:

"This article was updated on April 8, 2011. This article has been Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico."



The work was checked and jibes with the numerous references. The fact that you discount the work because the man is a biologist brings your inherent bias, and flawed logic into sharp relief. Claiming that the work is not valid because he is a biologist is know as a circumstantial ad hominem. Either the work is correct or it is not. Feel free to prove him wrong.

I understand your reluctance to question your faith, but don't pretend rationality with arguments like that.

 

[bobgnote]

As far as your points go, the forams that died could have died due to many causes. Anoxia is most likely in my mind. It seems to be a common problem with benthic dwellers through the aeons. Additionally I absolutely agree with you that stressors are the primary drivers of evolution. The claim that we are currently in a mass extinction event is quite ridiculous however, 20,000 new species discovered in the last 5 years alone belie that tale.

As far as your final point, history once again tells us that warmth is good. The written record (Pliny and others) is very clear that the Roman Warming Period was warmer than the present day and even if it were a localised event (most peer reviewed literature ((only climatologists say it wasn't)) says it was global) the effects were profound and universally beneficial. Roman civilisation began because the climate was warm and static.

Conversely, Roman culture was on the wane by the 400's and the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe helped kill off the western Roman Empire.

Wally, you are this dumb bitch, who can't post links or read graphs or think, yet your choice of moniker and lapses into yiddish suggest you should be smarter, than you are, but you prefer the company of devolved humanoids, who may have descended, from people who popped THE QUESTION, at your forebears. You sure are questionable.

You keep claiming how discovery of 20,000 species, mostly insects, somehow indicates known habitats and species aren't declining. You have dumb-bitch denial, going on. If you didn't know about discovered species, in a box, the total in your box didn't increase.

Of course, we will resist the plagues, which killed off Romans or medieval persons of interest, but with emissions 10x PETM, up go temps, down goes ocean pH, and we will eventually get more anoxic events. The land will be hot as hell. Sooner, not later.

 

[IanC]

so you are coming around. you admit CO2 slows down energy loss but 'not appreciably'.

IR passes through a CO2 molecule at the same speed it was going when it encountered the molecule. There is no slowing down.

if we could just get you from stating that the second law of thermodynamics stops CO2 molecules from randomly ejecting photons, some towards Earth, then I for one would be happy.

Again with the lies and misrepresentation of what I have said. I never claimed anything like second law prevents a molecule from ejecting a photon. Why do you find that you must lie? Or is it that you have failed so grossly to understand what I have explained to you in such simple terms.

As I have said, CO2 can emit all the photons towards the surface of the earth it wants, but not even one will ever reach the surface. The energy that the photon represents will be expended in opposition to the EM field of greater magnitude being propagated away from the earth.

I am very sorry that you think I misrepresent and lie about what you have said. I have certainly asked you for clarification often enough.

you claim that CO2 does not slow IR escape

IR passes through a CO2 molecule at the same speed it was going when it encountered the molecule. There is no slowing down.

are you making the trivial statement that photons travel at the speed of light? because if you are saying that it takes the same amount of time for a photon to reach space via absorption by a CO2 molecule, vibration of the molecule, ejection of the photon in a random direction, as it does by having the photon simply leave at the speed of light then you are talking nonsense. the time involved in absorption, excited state, and emission (in a random direction) dramatically slow the escape compared to straight out escape at the speed of light.

second claim-

As I have said, CO2 can emit all the photons towards the surface of the earth it wants, but not even one will ever reach the surface. The energy that the photon represents will be expended in opposition to the EM field of greater magnitude being propagated away from the earth

yet you refuse to explain where, when or how this happens. does it disappear at the CO2 molecule, at the surface or in between? does it happen instantaneously or does the photon have time to interact with something else between the CO2 molecule and the surface? what is the mechanism that 'expends' the photon? all reasonable questions, always ducked by you. will you answer this time? not bloody likely!

 

[Trakar]

As far as your points go, the forams that died could have died due to many causes. Anoxia is most likely in my mind. It seems to be a common problem with benthic dwellers through the aeons. Additionally I absolutely agree with you that stressors are the primary drivers of evolution. The claim that we are currently in a mass extinction event is quite ridiculous however, 20,000 new species discovered in the last 5 years alone belie that tale.

Is evolution happening? Of course it is. Evolution is allways happening. And it usually happens in the temperate zones. That is where the "action is" if you like. Equatorial and arctic regions are fairly stable thus very little stress is introduced into the biosphere to drive evolutionary change.

The temperate zones are just the opposite. They are allways undergoing some form of trauma and that pushes evolution right along.

Your comments about the conclusions being shakey is only in regards climatology. Geologists and paleontologists have a much better handle on the events of the past and the conclusions square quite clearly with observed reality obtained from the fossil record.
The computer models are nowhere near reality in this area. Nowhere.

As far as your final point, history once again tells us that warmth is good. The written record (Pliny and others) is very clear that the Roman Warming Period was warmer than the present day and even if it were a localised event (most peer reviewed literature ((only climatologists say it wasn't)) says it was global) the effects were profound and universally beneficial. Roman civilisation began because the climate was warm and static.

Conversely, Roman culture was on the wane by the 400's and the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe helped kill off the western Roman Empire.

I'm sure these constitute your beliefs, unfortunately, the compelling mainstream understandings and weight of evidences indicate otherwise.

If you believe that you have references to articles published in climate science relevent professional journals which support your belief that the so-called "Roman warm period" was both global and warmer than present global temperatures I would be very interested in reading them.

 

[Trakar]

There are numerous factors that contributed to temperature rises and falls, but CO2 levels are one of the primary agencies in establishing and maintaining surface temperatures on our planet. [/COLOR]

There is zero empirical evidence to support that statement.

Empirical - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

Climate Change: Evidence

How to Estimate Planetary Temperatures
(BPL to those who know him)

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

Global Climate Change | Cornell University

"The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction"
John Tyndall
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

(more available)

 

[Trakar]

Radioassay analysis indicates that the initiation of the PETM is marked by an abrupt decrease in the Carbon 13 proportion of marine and terrestrial sedimentary carbon, which is consistent with the rapid addition of >1500 gigatons of Carbon-13 depleted carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide and/or methane, into the hydrosphere and atmosphere. as the basaltic magma eruptions associated with the spreading apart of the north atlantic immediately prior to global thermal effects. These flows occurred primarily in the 10-20k years prior to the beginning of the PETM and the first 10ky or so after the start of PETM conditions. Of course, once the warming began, other sequestered sources of carbon began adding their stores of carbon to the atmosphere as well.

http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga/LIPS/storey07.pdf

There are numerous factors that contributed to temperature rises and falls, but CO2 levels are one of the primary agencies in establishing and maintaining surface temperatures on our planet.

once short term environmental sinks and sources have emitted their stores of carbon, they cease being sources. After temperature equilibrates CO2 levels are slowly lowered through fresh exposures of granite to the atmosphere (mountain building and weathering), in this case, remember the time frame of this earlier discussion, we have the collision of the Indian subcontinent into the belly of Asia pushing up the Himalayans, the intrusion of Africa pushing up the Alps and pinching what will become Greece into the fracturing Asian and European boundaries, and let's not forget the N. American plate riding up the Pacific plate creating the Rockies and coastal ranges west, that's a whole lotta mountain building episodes. And generally, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop much below 300ppm and we start getting temperatures cool enough to start building year round icecaps at higher latitudes and altitudes. Much below 250ppm and those latitude and altitude boundaries begin creeping downward; much above 350ppm and the ice at even high latitude and altitude begins disappearing.

Actually, PETM max is generally considered to have been between 5-7º C warmer than late 20th century average.

Some estimates of the high latitude arctic ocean temps were in the 23C range. If that is true the equatorial temps would have been much higher. That would elevate the average global temp to around 11C higher than today.

Making the cause effect connection seems to assume that the cause is the rising GHG's and the effect is the rising temperatures.

If the the question concerns establishing a cause, then this becomes circular logic, does it not?

That aside, though, the difference in the timing of CO2 being the effect or the cause is a matter of hundreds of years measured by a device reaching millions of years into the past. Does this method isolate the rise of temperature from the rise of CO2 and prove conclusive ly that one preceded the other?

The link that I provided showed that the prevailing temperature before the PETM was about 10 or 12 degrees warmer than today rising another few degrees during the PETM. It also says that it is a conservative estimate of the temperature rise.

Do you have a link to show the relatively small 5 to 7 degrees that you cite?

Westwall cited higher temp extremes, I noted 5-7 as a generaly relflection of the data studies I'm familiar with, not sure who you are asking but here are a few references for 5-7.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/SluijsPETM.pdf

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/data/2006Pagani.Science.pdf

More available upon request, but I should clarify that I am not wedded to this range, I am aware of studies that postulate much higher levels. I am just staying with general mainstream considerations and more focussed on the rate of rise in global average temps than on precisely how much they rose or differences between starting and peak temps then and how they compare to such modern measurements.

BTW equatorial regions warm less than polar regions in GHG forced climate warming.

 

[Trakar]

Your understanding of LOTD is flawed. You do not get to arbitrairly allocate "objects;" electrons in low energy states about the atoms in surface material will absorb an appropriate frequency photon regardless of the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "surface" object, or the average energy state of the arbitrarily assigned "atmosphere" object that emitted that photon.

My understanding is not flawed. The law is stated in explicit and absolute terms. If you understand it to mean something other than what it says, then it is your understanding that is flawed. It is not possible for energy to flow from a cooler object to a warmer object. If it were, perpetual motion would be commonplace.

Again, primarily an issue of flawed understandings. the mean free path (the average distance that photon can travel before interaction with absorptive atmospheric atoms or particles) of a ghg relevent wavelength IR photon, in the lower atmosphere is on the order of meters. That is why most energy transfer in our atmosphere occurs via convection rather than radiation transfer.

I am not sure what you believe that you said has to do with what I said, but if you believe that a CO2 molecule can absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule thus setting the stage for CO2 to delay IR from exiting the atmosphere, I am afraid that it is you who is laboring under the misunderstanding.

Take our discussion to any qualified physicist and let them enlighten you, I am not here to argue crank pseudoscience pot-crackers with people who apparently don't have a solid foundation in math, physics or general science, and who demonstrate no desire or ability to learn that which they obviously don't understand.

 

[Trakar]

This paper is a joke.
It has never been published in any mainstream journal, for obvious and apparent reasons, it is littered with unsupported assertions and errors. arguing an unpublished fringe pseudoscience monograph by a retired biologist who is trying to BS about his quantum quakery confusions regarding LoTD is not a path I am interested in engaging upon.

Considering the degree to which you warmist and luke warmers misunderstand the science, it is not surprising at all that you fail to grasp the truth when you see it. And considering the corrupt state of pal review within the field of climate science, arguing that a paper has not been published in a mainstream journal is simply absurd. In fact, today anything that gets published in a mainstream journal is suspect.

Perhaps you failed to note his appreciation:

"The author is grateful to Dr. Jonathan M. Walsh, PhD in mathematics"

Further the author states:

"This article was updated on April 8, 2011. This article has been Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico."



The work was checked and jibes with the numerous references. The fact that you discount the work because the man is a biologist brings your inherent bias, and flawed logic into sharp relief. Claiming that the work is not valid because he is a biologist is know as a circumstantial ad hominem. Either the work is correct or it is not. Feel free to prove him wrong.

I understand your reluctance to question your faith, but don't pretend rationality with arguments like that.

Spouting cracked-pot conspiracy theories does not support nor validate your rantings.

 

[code1211]

[/COLOR]

Some estimates of the high latitude arctic ocean temps were in the 23C range. If that is true the equatorial temps would have been much higher. That would elevate the average global temp to around 11C higher than today.

Making the cause effect connection seems to assume that the cause is the rising GHG's and the effect is the rising temperatures.

If the the question concerns establishing a cause, then this becomes circular logic, does it not?

That aside, though, the difference in the timing of CO2 being the effect or the cause is a matter of hundreds of years measured by a device reaching millions of years into the past. Does this method isolate the rise of temperature from the rise of CO2 and prove conclusive ly that one preceded the other?

The link that I provided showed that the prevailing temperature before the PETM was about 10 or 12 degrees warmer than today rising another few degrees during the PETM. It also says that it is a conservative estimate of the temperature rise.

Do you have a link to show the relatively small 5 to 7 degrees that you cite?

Westwall cited higher temp extremes, I noted 5-7 as a generaly relflection of the data studies I'm familiar with, not sure who you are asking but here are a few references for 5-7.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/SluijsPETM.pdf

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/data/2006Pagani.Science.pdf

More available upon request, but I should clarify that I am not wedded to this range, I am aware of studies that postulate much higher levels. I am just staying with general mainstream considerations and more focussed on the rate of rise in global average temps than on precisely how much they rose or differences between starting and peak temps then and how they compare to such modern measurements.

BTW equatorial regions warm less than polar regions in GHG forced climate warming.

We could be talking past each other on this, I'm not sure. I'm understanding you to say that the PETM was about 5 degrees warmer than we are today.

The links you provide indicate that the temperature rise in the PETM spike was 5 to 8 degrees depending on the source from the temperatures prevailing at the time.

Are you saying that the PETM was only warmer than today by 5 or so degrees?

 

[westwall]

As far as your points go, the forams that died could have died due to many causes. Anoxia is most likely in my mind. It seems to be a common problem with benthic dwellers through the aeons. Additionally I absolutely agree with you that stressors are the primary drivers of evolution. The claim that we are currently in a mass extinction event is quite ridiculous however, 20,000 new species discovered in the last 5 years alone belie that tale.

Is evolution happening? Of course it is. Evolution is allways happening. And it usually happens in the temperate zones. That is where the "action is" if you like. Equatorial and arctic regions are fairly stable thus very little stress is introduced into the biosphere to drive evolutionary change.

The temperate zones are just the opposite. They are allways undergoing some form of trauma and that pushes evolution right along.

Your comments about the conclusions being shakey is only in regards climatology. Geologists and paleontologists have a much better handle on the events of the past and the conclusions square quite clearly with observed reality obtained from the fossil record.
The computer models are nowhere near reality in this area. Nowhere.

As far as your final point, history once again tells us that warmth is good. The written record (Pliny and others) is very clear that the Roman Warming Period was warmer than the present day and even if it were a localised event (most peer reviewed literature ((only climatologists say it wasn't)) says it was global) the effects were profound and universally beneficial. Roman civilisation began because the climate was warm and static.

Conversely, Roman culture was on the wane by the 400's and the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe helped kill off the western Roman Empire.

I'm sure these constitute your beliefs, unfortunately, the compelling mainstream understandings and weight of evidences indicate otherwise.

If you believe that you have references to articles published in climate science relevent professional journals which support your belief that the so-called "Roman warm period" was both global and warmer than present global temperatures I would be very interested in reading them.

Feel free to look them up. Science direct is your friend. In other words I've posted them many times and as I leave for Paris tomorrow I will let you do your own work for once. It will do you good. You read far to much of the biased pal reviewed pap of your AGW supporters. Time for you to read some real science.

And history. Read some history too. Pliny the Elder is particularly good as regards the Roman Warming Period as he was a naturalist as well. He was an excellent observer of the natural world. Something you AGW types are lacking.

 

[westwall]

There are numerous factors that contributed to temperature rises and falls, but CO2 levels are one of the primary agencies in establishing and maintaining surface temperatures on our planet. [/COLOR]

There is zero empirical evidence to support that statement.

Empirical - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

Climate Change: Evidence

How to Estimate Planetary Temperatures
(BPL to those who know him)

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

Global Climate Change | Cornell University

"The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction"
John Tyndall
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

(more available)

Empirical, based on real observations. Not computer models or Hansens falsified data. I particularly love the Cornell sites vapid assertions. There's no science in it. Merely assertions based on nothing but correlation. I hate to break it to you but CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION! For the umpteenth time. No matter how many times you people try to make the un educated people believe it to be so.

 

[Trakar]

... We could be talking past each other on this, I'm not sure. I'm understanding you to say that the PETM was about 5 degrees warmer than we are today.

The links you provide indicate that the temperature rise in the PETM spike was 5 to 8 degrees depending on the source from the temperatures prevailing at the time.

Are you saying that the PETM was only warmer than today by 5 or so degrees?

As I said earlier, at the beginning of the PETM the temperatures were ~3 degrees C warmer in the arctic than the the average global temp. today , and at peak, those arctic temps rose another 5 or so degrees. The PETM world saw a more even temp. increase than the our modern world due to the much lower temps at which our world is entering this similarly forced warming episode. The peak global average temp of the PETM was probably a total of close to 10º C warmer than the average global temp today or around 25º C. The PETM warming started out much warmer (higher CO2 atmospheric concentration) and reached its peak in about 30k years. In our current warming we are looking at a total of between 5-7º in the first couple of hundred years (1850 - 2100 AD) and perhaps double that amount or more in the centuries immediately following that depending upon how quickly and decisively we deal with our issues, and whether or not we trip the release of natural sinks (trigger/tipping point). Ultimately, we may well exceed PETM max temps., but that is a goal I'd prefer not to meet.