"An astounding 102 million trees are now dead in California".

[westwall]

PETM: Global Warming, Naturally | Weather Underground

The Earth has undergone many episodes of natural global warming and cooling and by various causes. The Earth's most common mechanism for climate change are Milankovitch cycles—variations in the Earth's orbit that change its distance from the Sun, which spur ice ages and subsequent warming. Other changes in Earth's past climate were caused by the same processes causing today's warming. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred around 56 million years ago, is the most recent event that we can compare today's warming to. Global temperatures rose at least 5°C (9°F), and the PETM warmth lasted 200,000 years before the Earth system was able to remove the extra CO2 from the atmosphere. The resulting impact on Earth's climate was so severe that a new geological era was born—the Eocene. Earth's ecosystems were able to adapt to the PETM because the warming was gradual; however, the warming we're causing today is about 10 times as fast, and Mother Nature might not be able to keep up with the changing climate this time around.

Well yes, there was quite a spike in CO2 at that time. And an extinction event for benthic organisms.

Yes, due to an ANOXIC environment. Not heat you 'tard!

 

[HenryBHough]

Trees finally figured it out.

They can't move out of California so they might as well just give up and die.

Pity people aren't as smart as trees.

 

[ding]

PETM: Global Warming, Naturally | Weather Underground

The Earth has undergone many episodes of natural global warming and cooling and by various causes. The Earth's most common mechanism for climate change are Milankovitch cycles—variations in the Earth's orbit that change its distance from the Sun, which spur ice ages and subsequent warming. Other changes in Earth's past climate were caused by the same processes causing today's warming. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred around 56 million years ago, is the most recent event that we can compare today's warming to. Global temperatures rose at least 5°C (9°F), and the PETM warmth lasted 200,000 years before the Earth system was able to remove the extra CO2 from the atmosphere. The resulting impact on Earth's climate was so severe that a new geological era was born—the Eocene. Earth's ecosystems were able to adapt to the PETM because the warming was gradual; however, the warming we're causing today is about 10 times as fast, and Mother Nature might not be able to keep up with the changing climate this time around.

Well yes, there was quite a spike in CO2 at that time. And an extinction event for benthic organisms.

I don't believe you understand the PETM at all. It was pretty hot BEFORE the PETM. Not to mention that after the Azolla bloom in the Arctic Ocean which drew down the atmospheric CO2, it took quite a long time for the temperature to fall.... like millions of years, lol. So it appears that the radiative forcing of CO2 is not all it is cracked up to be, lol.

 

[ding]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"An astounding 102 million trees are now dead in California". The big concern is the wildfires that this will likely cause in the fire season of the summer of 2017.

An astounding 102 million trees have now died in California

Extract: "Forest managers have never seen anything like it. Across California, an astounding 102 million trees have died over the past six years from drought and disease — including 62 million trees in 2016 alone, the US Forest Service estimates. Once-mighty oaks and pines have faded into ghastly hues of brown and gray. "

Sad...Something is seriously wrong with the environment in this area.

Thanks, Obama

 

[Old Rocks]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

 

[westwall]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

 

[ding]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Are you telling me that a climate science "expert" like yourself is not familiar with the CO2 data from the geologic record?

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

Given that you behave like a religious fanatic when the dogma of your religion is challenged AND given that you are rejecting science AND given that you are inflamed by this social issue, I would say that my signature is spot on.

As for my celebration.... it was well deserved as your religious beliefs have been decimated by my science.

You don't know about the science of radiative forcing. You don't know the geologic CO2 record. Imagine what else you do not know.

 

[ding]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

 

[westwall]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

 

[ding]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Or by its religious followers who don't understand and can't discuss the science beyond what they can copy and paste. They don't understand radiative forcing or past climate changes and have no idea what the CO2 record and oxygen isotope curve is throughout time or what that tells them. They are like the sheep in George Orwell's Aninal Farm who can only bleat out the party line. They run on emotion rather than logic and make statements like....

Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers. - Crick

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. - Crick

 

[westwall]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Or by its religious followers who don't understand and can't discuss the science beyond what they can copy and paste. They don't understand radiative forcing or the past climate changes and have no idea what the CO2 record is throughout time or what that tells them. They are like the sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm who can only bleat out the party line. They run on emotion rather than logic and make statements like....

Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers. - Crick

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. - Crick

That's because, ultimately, those who are pushing the agenda are totalitarians at heart. They don't care about science save in how they can pervert it to their end. They only care about power, and how to amass it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Earth would be a frozen ball of ice if it wasn't for the green house effect.

"These greenhouse gases keep the surface of the Earth approximately 60F warmer than we would expect without these gases present."

Greenhouse Effect | Climate Education Modules for K-12

 

[Old Rocks]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Are you telling me that a climate science "expert" like yourself is not familiar with the CO2 data from the geologic record?

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

Given that you behave like a religious fanatic when the dogma of your religion is challenged AND given that you are rejecting science AND given that you are inflamed by this social issue, I would say that my signature is spot on.

As for my celebration.... it was well deserved as your religious beliefs have been decimated by my science.

You don't know about the science of radiative forcing. You don't know the geologic CO2 record. Imagine what else you do not know.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years : Abstract : Nature

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years
Paul N. Pearson1 & Martin R. Palmer2

1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
2. T. H. Huxley School, Imperial College, RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago

Well, yes, that is a good article. And your point is?

 

[Old Rocks]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Or by its religious followers who don't understand and can't discuss the science beyond what they can copy and paste. They don't understand radiative forcing or the past climate changes and have no idea what the CO2 record is throughout time or what that tells them. They are like the sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm who can only bleat out the party line. They run on emotion rather than logic and make statements like....

Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers. - Crick

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. - Crick

That's because, ultimately, those who are pushing the agenda are totalitarians at heart. They don't care about science save in how they can pervert it to their end. They only care about power, and how to amass it.

Sure enough, old man, and everything is politics to you, and you nor Ding give a damn about real scientists. Well, the real scientists don't give a damn about ignoramouses like you either.

Old man, AGU convention coming up again. Who is going to present the definitive proof that AGW is not real? LOL

 

[westwall]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Earth would be a frozen ball of ice if it wasn't for the green house effect.

"These greenhouse gases keep the surface of the Earth approximately 60F warmer than we would expect without these gases present."

Greenhouse Effect | Climate Education Modules for K-12

I doubt that. I think the fact that we have a dense enough atmosphere to blanket the Earth, and to retain the heat that has built up over billions of years is what keeps us warm rather than freezing to death when the Sun go's down is what does the trick. Having enough mass to retain that atmosphere is critical too. I love their SWAG too. Were there no atmosphere the temp would plummet to -243F, like it does on the Moon. So how is it that the GHG "effect" is good for 60 degreesF. What about the rest of that temp disparity?

That's the problem matthew. Too much guessing, not enough real work. And no, computer models ain't real work.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Well now, Mr. Westwall, why don't you just argue with the American Institute of Physics, Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, and Svante Arrhenius?

 

[ding]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Are you telling me that a climate science "expert" like yourself is not familiar with the CO2 data from the geologic record?

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

Given that you behave like a religious fanatic when the dogma of your religion is challenged AND given that you are rejecting science AND given that you are inflamed by this social issue, I would say that my signature is spot on.

As for my celebration.... it was well deserved as your religious beliefs have been decimated by my science.

You don't know about the science of radiative forcing. You don't know the geologic CO2 record. Imagine what else you do not know.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years : Abstract : Nature

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years
Paul N. Pearson1 & Martin R. Palmer2

1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
2. T. H. Huxley School, Imperial College, RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BP, UK

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago

Well, yes, that is a good article. And your point is?

That you have never looked at this data or understand what it means. And that you still haven't. All you have done is read the abstract.

 

[ding]

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Or by its religious followers who don't understand and can't discuss the science beyond what they can copy and paste. They don't understand radiative forcing or the past climate changes and have no idea what the CO2 record is throughout time or what that tells them. They are like the sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm who can only bleat out the party line. They run on emotion rather than logic and make statements like....

Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers. - Crick

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. - Crick

That's because, ultimately, those who are pushing the agenda are totalitarians at heart. They don't care about science save in how they can pervert it to their end. They only care about power, and how to amass it.

Sure enough, old man, and everything is politics to you, and you nor Ding give a damn about real scientists. Well, the real scientists don't give a damn about ignoramouses like you either.

Old man, AGU convention coming up again. Who is going to present the definitive proof that AGW is not real? LOL

Don't be an idiot. We already had this discussion. Of course there is a GHG effect. That was what the whole discussion on radiatve forcing was about. Another topic that you had no understand of until I taught it to you.

 

[ding]

Two things here. One, self congratulation is a sign of an adolescent mind. Two, your sig line approaches infantile in it's indicated understanding of economic and political systems.

Another thing, how about some links to the source of your graphs. A very rapid rise in GHGs does result in a rapid rise in temperature, and the recovery is slow. Not at all a good thing for our descendents.

Not born out by fact. The ice core data is very precise. Warming comes first, and hundreds of years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact.

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.

View attachment 99718

Indeed. The more I research the GHG "effect" the less impressed by it I become.

Earth would be a frozen ball of ice if it wasn't for the green house effect.

"These greenhouse gases keep the surface of the Earth approximately 60F warmer than we would expect without these gases present."

Greenhouse Effect | Climate Education Modules for K-12

Sure. There is a GHG effect. This we know for sure, but the largest effect is at very low concentrations. That's because there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and associated temperature. Which means that as CO2 concentration increases the incremental temperature associated with the CO2 increase diminishes. So a 120 ppm increase from 0 to 120 would have a much bigger impact (19.21 C) than a 120 ppm increase from 280 to 400 ppm (24.04 - 19.21 = 1.43 C)