Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[bobgnote]

Humans have allready devolved is what you meant to write junior, and you are a wonderful example of that de-evolution.

Did you like the Vostok graph, Wally, you piece of shit? Want some more?

You are welcome to load a graph that isn't shit, Wally. Other people load graphs. You wait 8-10 lines, like a queer waiting to get run over, and then you rant on, "allready," (sic) you idiot. Switch to coffee. Whatever is polluting you makes you really queenie.

 

[Trakar]

When has always not worked over the last half million years or so?

The last half million years is current geologic history, the mere blink of a geologically referenced eye. Given the age of Geo, a half a million years is about one ten thousandth of geological existence. That barely takes us back over the last few interglacials. In recent geological history would probably stretch back at least fifty million years (roughly one percent of Geo's existence). Which puts us within approximation to the PETM.

So are you joining in the PETM is proof positive in a happened 3 times in 4.5 billion years kind of a way that CO2 causes warming instead of the other way around?

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.

 

[westwall]

The last half million years is current geologic history, the mere blink of a geologically referenced eye. Given the age of Geo, a half a million years is about one ten thousandth of geological existence. That barely takes us back over the last few interglacials. In recent geological history would probably stretch back at least fifty million years (roughly one percent of Geo's existence). Which puts us within approximation to the PETM.

So are you joining in the PETM is proof positive in a happened 3 times in 4.5 billion years kind of a way that CO2 causes warming instead of the other way around?

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....


"Life

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.

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]"


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

 

[IanC]

I never made any pretense of thorough analysis, I pointed out that GISS is making wholesale changes to the data records with no notice and no explanations. I believe that I made my point in that thread. if you disagree then feel free to make a comment on that thread.

Right, by "pointed out" you mean "stated as fact with no evidence, in order to make a long story short", then I agree.


Let's analyze your post which you seem to claim has some sort of value:

times have been rough over at the CAGW compound. mother nature just hasnt been co-operating like she did back in the good ol' days.

Emotion based matters of opinion

It is an obvious fallacious argument to suggest something is true because people are told its true. Also emotion based, nothing of factual relevance here.


The description of the data as "limp" is stated as fact while presenting no justification in evidence.

Muller's BEST project derived even higher temps than the other groups producing global temp data sets, and BEST was seen to be leaning towards the skeptical side. how did they do it? to make a long story short, the BEST algorithms chop up data histories and discard suspicious inputs. because there is a positive trend cooler data are much more likely to get discarded than warmer ones and the average goes up. just what Hansen needs!

You've shown no evidence that the method results in amplifying the positive trend, you've merely stated it as fact. That is your 'making a long story short' - just saying it is so.

Greenland data are sparse, noisy and often incomplete. perfect to try out this new idea. but I guess it was too much work so he just took out the (suspicious) data from the early 80's and then subtracted 1C from all the pre-1980 numbers. voila! the Nuuk temperature chart looks much better now.

Again - statement as fact with no justification.

emotion based matters of opinion? I dont think so.

global warming advocacy took off in the late 80's and 90's because it really was getting warmer. since the 1998 El Nino the temps have been flat and global warming was renamed climate change.

do you really think that no one has heard the drumbeat of the skeptics pointing out obvious bad science and bad science practise over the last 15 years? it was easy to deny at first but now, especially after climategate evidence in the hockey team's own words, fewer and fewer people are giving climate scientists the automatic benefit of the doubt because there has been strong evidence that shows many weaknesses in their work as well as deception if not outright fraud. fool me once, .......

as far as the BEST method of chopping the data up---I have discussed it on this board, probably late last summer, early fall. it is called kridging and it throws away more cool temps than warm ones because it assumes the temps are going up.

I assume that people who are expressing their opinion on whether other poster's views are incorrect have at least a rudimentary knowledge base of what has gone on in climate science for the past 15 years and a general understanding of scientific principles that allows them to judge the evidence that is presented. unfortunately I am often disappointed by their blatant stupidity and total incompetence at understanding even the simplest concepts. eg. the temps from 1998-2012 have remained flat, yet how many people emphatically state that the warming is accelerating? they dont understand what accelerating is, and often neither does the media because it gets printed in the headlines on a regular basis.

I no longer give a shit if people want to remain stupid. if you want to discuss the obviously biased adjustments to the data records, BEST methodologies, improprieties disclosed in the climategate emails, or any of a number of other climate related subjects I will gladly reciprocate. it is not my job educate you or look up links for you, or even point out your logical errors but I will do all of those things for anybody who wants to civilly discuss the matters at hand.

 

[wirebender]

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.

Physics provides no support for a greenhouse effect that is anything like that claimed to exist by climate science. Chemistry denies your own description of the mechanism by which you and many luke warmers believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming. Your claim was that CO2 slows the escape of IR from the atmosphere but the materials that I provided you prove that such is not possible because a CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule.

 

[IanC]

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.

Physics provides no support for a greenhouse effect that is anything like that claimed to exist by climate science. Chemistry denies your own description of the mechanism by which you and many luke warmers believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming. Your claim was that CO2 slows the escape of IR from the atmosphere but the materials that I provided you prove that such is not possible because a CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule.

spectrophotometry is the basis of many instruments. it can work in two ways. either you heat a substance and see what light is emitted, or you can shine white light through a substance and see which wavelengths are absorbed. both methods produce the same spectra for any particular substance, one positive and the other negative.

I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I am saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.

 

[wirebender]

I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I am saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.

ian, you acknowledged yourself that you could grasp that the IR exits a CO2 molecule at a different wavelength than that which it entered. I gave you a formal paper on the topic which gave you exactly the wavelength at which IR exits a CO2 molecule. I asked you which absorption band the IR exiting from one CO2 molecule might be absorbed by another CO2 molecule but alas, there were none so you simply didn't answer.

Face it ian, you are wrong. Your personal idea of how warming occurs is no more plausible than the official greenhouse effect as voiced by the IPCC.

 

[IanC]

I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I am saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.

ian, you acknowledged yourself that you could grasp that the IR exits a CO2 molecule at a different wavelength than that which it entered. I gave you a formal paper on the topic which gave you exactly the wavelength at which IR exits a CO2 molecule. I asked you which absorption band the IR exiting from one CO2 molecule might be absorbed by another CO2 molecule but alas, there were none so you simply didn't answer.

Face it ian, you are wrong. Your personal idea of how warming occurs is no more plausible than the official greenhouse effect as voiced by the IPCC.

I acknowledged that higher energy photons going in to a CO2 molecule could come out as several lower energy photons that added up to the original photon. entropy. but all of the photons would be in the emission/absorption spectra of the CO2 molecule because that is how quantum physics works.

 

[bobgnote]

So are you joining in the PETM is proof positive in a happened 3 times in 4.5 billion years kind of a way that CO2 causes warming instead of the other way around?

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.

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

You aren't reading everything, about PETM. Acidification caused a lot of reduction, of ocean species. Survivors migrated. Dwarfism may have contributed, to diversity.

Plant diversity comes easier, than animal diversity. Plants adjust to CO2, obviously, but they develop less stomata, in times of CO2 proliferation.

But we are realeasing GHGs faster, than the volcanic eruptions of the PETM did:

PETM: Global Warming, Naturally | Weather Underground

PETM Warming vs. Current Warming

During the PETM, around 5 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years. In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes release 0.2 billion tons of CO2 per year. How fast carbon enters the atmosphere translates to the how fast temperature increases, and the environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a break-neck speed could be devastating.

-----------------------

How fast the methane outgasses is a factor:

Paleocene

Ocean warming due to flooding and pressure changes due to a sea-level drop may have caused clathrates to become unstable and release methane. This can take place over as short of a period as a few thousand years. The reverse process, that of fixing methane in clathrates, occurs over a larger scale of tens of thousands of years.[36]

----------------------

Here's a really good article, which tries to resolve outcomes, with disputed proxies, but the implications for our faster outgassing are clear. We re-green, or we migrate 7 billion people, to some part of the world, less affected, by faster warming, than during the PETM. Migration was the way to survival, for species affected by the PETM, so why not move to Mars, since all we have to do to get there is rocket on up there, lay down some GHGs, grow some lichens, introduce bugs, rocket all of us up there, and then we can be spacemen, who eat bugs:

RealClimate: PETM Weirdness

Temperature changes at the same time as this huge carbon spike were large too. Note that this is happening on a Paleocene background climate that we don’t fully understand either – the polar amplification in very warm paleo-climates is much larger than we’ve been able to explain using standard models. Estimates range from 5 to 9 deg C warming (with some additional uncertainty due to potential problems with the proxy data) – smaller in the tropics than at higher latitudes.

------------------

It seems likely we will remain on Earth, where many humans will eat shit, and die, while most species become extinct because humans are collectively stupid and greedy. I wonder how long the crime-pays economy will persist? Jamie couldn't make money! What's going to happen, where idiot-traffic can't see a warmup, underway?

The first good question is, how fast will shit happen? In a geologic instant!

 

[wirebender]

I acknowledged that higher energy photons going in to a CO2 molecule could come out as several lower energy photons that added up to the original photon. entropy. but all of the photons would be in the emission/absorption spectra of the CO2 molecule because that is how quantum physics works.

Sorry ian, it can't happen. Several lower energy photons (whatever the hell you mean by that) adding up to the same energy as the original photons would constitute a violation of the law of conservation of energy. The reason the IR exits the CO2 molecule at a longer wavelength is because a certain amount of energy is expended causing the CO2 molecule to vibrate. You can't get that energy back no matter how many lower energy photons you imagine the CO2 molecule spitting out.

And clearly ian, you don't have a clue as to how quantum physics works as evidenced by the fact that you believe you can get around the law of conservation of energy by simply breaking the photon in to multiple photons. It is as dumb as you idea that you could get more energy out of spencer's bar by adding some sides to it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I am saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.

ian, you acknowledged yourself that you could grasp that the IR exits a CO2 molecule at a different wavelength than that which it entered. I gave you a formal paper on the topic which gave you exactly the wavelength at which IR exits a CO2 molecule. I asked you which absorption band the IR exiting from one CO2 molecule might be absorbed by another CO2 molecule but alas, there were none so you simply didn't answer.

Face it ian, you are wrong. Your personal idea of how warming occurs is no more plausible than the official greenhouse effect as voiced by the IPCC.

Its not a simple matter of being tuned to a specific frequency.. The absorption/emissions spectra consists of MULTIPLE "lines" at which the matter is free to accept/discharge (in this case) IR as RF energy. All this has nothing to do with heat transfer and thermo either. Only the radiative balance (input/output) of the material due to IR (electromagnetic) transmission.

But hey... Whatever predicts the right answer --- Right?

 

[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.

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

You aren't reading everything, about PETM. Acidification caused a lot of reduction, of ocean species. Survivors migrated. Dwarfism may have contributed, to diversity.

Plant diversity comes easier, than animal diversity. Plants adjust to CO2, obviously, but they develop less stomata, in times of CO2 proliferation.

But we are realeasing GHGs faster, than the volcanic eruptions of the PETM did:

PETM: Global Warming, Naturally | Weather Underground

PETM Warming vs. Current Warming

During the PETM, around 5 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years. In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes release 0.2 billion tons of CO2 per year. How fast carbon enters the atmosphere translates to the how fast temperature increases, and the environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a break-neck speed could be devastating.

-----------------------

How fast the methane outgasses is a factor:

Paleocene

Ocean warming due to flooding and pressure changes due to a sea-level drop may have caused clathrates to become unstable and release methane. This can take place over as short of a period as a few thousand years. The reverse process, that of fixing methane in clathrates, occurs over a larger scale of tens of thousands of years.[36]

----------------------

Here's a really good article, which tries to resolve outcomes, with disputed proxies, but the implications for our faster outgassing are clear. We re-green, or we migrate 7 billion people, to some part of the world, less affected, by faster warming, than during the PETM. Migration was the way to survival, for species affected by the PETM, so why not move to Mars, since all we have to do to get there is rocket on up there, lay down some GHGs, grow some lichens, introduce bugs, rocket all of us up there, and then we can be spacemen, who eat bugs:

RealClimate: PETM Weirdness

Temperature changes at the same time as this huge carbon spike were large too. Note that this is happening on a Paleocene background climate that we don’t fully understand either – the polar amplification in very warm paleo-climates is much larger than we’ve been able to explain using standard models. Estimates range from 5 to 9 deg C warming (with some additional uncertainty due to potential problems with the proxy data) – smaller in the tropics than at higher latitudes.

------------------

It seems likely we will remain on Earth, where many humans will eat shit, and die, while most species become extinct because humans are collectively stupid and greedy. I wonder how long the crime-pays economy will persist? Jamie couldn't make money! What's going to happen, where idiot-traffic can't see a warmup, underway?

The first good question is, how fast will shit happen? In a geologic instant!

You clearly didn't read the wiki entry did you. Anoxia is a more likely cause of the forams demise. When the scientists tested the little critters with extremely high levels of acidic water (far higher than would ever be found in nature) they got STRONGER. See how that works. You guys put forth a hypothesis and other scientists tested the hypothesis and found that it was WRONG.

That's how the scientific method works. Something you clowns ignore and simply don't understand. But that's normal. Believers in AGW have a much lower understanding of basic science than the sceptics do according to a recent study. You see junior the fraudsters can only fool..... well fools like you.

 

[bobgnote]

Oh, look! Wallyfucktard has a RED fish. It is a herring. Is it DEAD, or just RED? Oh, it is a dead, red herring. Whoop-dee-******* doo, Wallyfucktard.

Paleocene

You aren't reading everything, about PETM. Acidification caused a lot of reduction, of ocean species. Survivors migrated. Dwarfism may have contributed, to diversity.

Plant diversity comes easier, than animal diversity. Plants adjust to CO2, obviously, but they develop less stomata, in times of CO2 proliferation.

But we are realeasing GHGs faster, than the volcanic eruptions of the PETM did:

PETM: Global Warming, Naturally | Weather Underground

You clearly didn't read the wiki entry did you. Anoxia is a more likely cause of the forams demise. When the scientists tested the little critters with extremely high levels of acidic water (far higher than would ever be found in nature) they got STRONGER. See how that works. You guys put forth a hypothesis and other scientists tested the hypothesis and found that it was WRONG.

That's how the scientific method works. Something you clowns ignore and simply don't understand. But that's normal. Believers in AGW have a much lower understanding of basic science than the sceptics do according to a recent study. You see junior the fraudsters can only fool..... well fools like you.

No links to your study are posted at the several wikipedia links, which I still have up, on my browser, you punkass, lying queer. You can't fool, me, punk. You may have gotten over on somebody, out in Nevada.

Post a link to your study, or eat shit and die, you irrelevant, incompetent, lying punk. Type replies, after 1 line.

Anoxia will clearly affect species, adversely, after the oceans warm. So what, like I didn't see that coming, when I posted how organisms respirated H2S, in 36 C oceans? Isn't USMB fun, for Wally? He doesn't have to post graphs or links, and he gets to bait the straights.

Paleocene

Anoxia
In parts of the oceans, especially the north Atlantic Ocean, bioturbation is absent. This may be due to bottom-water anoxia, or by changing ocean circulation patterns changing the temperatures of the bottom water. However, many ocean basins remain bioturbated through the PETM.[3]

Anoxic event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bioturbation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Paleocene

You aren't reading everything, about PETM. Acidification caused a lot of reduction, of ocean species. Survivors migrated. Dwarfism may have contributed, to diversity.

Plant diversity comes easier, than animal diversity. Plants adjust to CO2, obviously, but they develop less stomata, in times of CO2 proliferation.

But we are realeasing GHGs faster, than the volcanic eruptions of the PETM did:

PETM: Global Warming, Naturally | Weather Underground

PETM Warming vs. Current Warming

During the PETM, around 5 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years. In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes release 0.2 billion tons of CO2 per year. How fast carbon enters the atmosphere translates to the how fast temperature increases, and the environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a break-neck speed could be devastating.

-----------------------

How fast the methane outgasses is a factor:

Paleocene

Ocean warming due to flooding and pressure changes due to a sea-level drop may have caused clathrates to become unstable and release methane. This can take place over as short of a period as a few thousand years. The reverse process, that of fixing methane in clathrates, occurs over a larger scale of tens of thousands of years.[36]

----------------------

Here's a really good article, which tries to resolve outcomes, with disputed proxies, but the implications for our faster outgassing are clear. We re-green, or we migrate 7 billion people, to some part of the world, less affected, by faster warming, than during the PETM. Migration was the way to survival, for species affected by the PETM, so why not move to Mars, since all we have to do to get there is rocket on up there, lay down some GHGs, grow some lichens, introduce bugs, rocket all of us up there, and then we can be spacemen, who eat bugs:

RealClimate: PETM Weirdness

Temperature changes at the same time as this huge carbon spike were large too. Note that this is happening on a Paleocene background climate that we don’t fully understand either – the polar amplification in very warm paleo-climates is much larger than we’ve been able to explain using standard models. Estimates range from 5 to 9 deg C warming (with some additional uncertainty due to potential problems with the proxy data) – smaller in the tropics than at higher latitudes.

------------------

It seems likely we will remain on Earth, where many humans will eat shit, and die, while most species become extinct because humans are collectively stupid and greedy. I wonder how long the crime-pays economy will persist? Jamie couldn't make money! What's going to happen, where idiot-traffic can't see a warmup, underway?

The first good question is, how fast will shit happen? In a geologic instant!

You clearly didn't read the wiki entry did you. Anoxia is a more likely cause of the forams demise. When the scientists tested the little critters with extremely high levels of acidic water (far higher than would ever be found in nature) they got STRONGER. See how that works. You guys put forth a hypothesis and other scientists tested the hypothesis and found that it was WRONG.

That's how the scientific method works. Something you clowns ignore and simply don't understand. But that's normal. Believers in AGW have a much lower understanding of basic science than the sceptics do according to a recent study. You see junior the fraudsters can only fool..... well fools like you.[/QUOTE]

No links to your study are posted at the several wikipedia links, which I still have up, on my browser, you punkass, lying queer.

Post a link to your study, or eat shit and die, lying punk. Type replies, after 1 line.

Anoxia will clearly affect species, adversely, after the oceans warm. Isn't USMB fun, for Wally? He doesn't have to post graphs or links, and he gets to bait the straights.

Paleocene

Anoxia
In parts of the oceans, especially the north Atlantic Ocean, bioturbation is absent. This may be due to bottom-water anoxia, or by changing ocean circulation patterns changing the temperatures of the bottom water. However, many ocean basins remain bioturbated through the PETM.[3]

Anoxic event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bioturbation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]







You see those little numbers at the end of the sentence? Those are indicators of footnotes and tell you where to look for the corroborating link to substantiate the claim. It's sad that an imbecile like you with no knowledge of English or academia thinks you are somehow knowledgeable. Your mom must have told you you sang well too.

No problem, here is the link that was in the link I allready posted but which you are too stupid to figure out how to find.



"Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate."


Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World

 

[wirebender]

Its not a simple matter of being tuned to a specific frequency.. The absorption/emissions spectra consists of MULTIPLE "lines" at which the matter is free to accept/discharge (in this case) IR as RF energy. All this has nothing to do with heat transfer and thermo either. Only the radiative balance (input/output) of the material due to IR (electromagnetic) transmission.

But hey... Whatever predicts the right answer --- Right?

This was about ian's own ideas about how CO2 causes warming. He, and some other luke warmers believe that CO2 somehow keeps IR in the atmosphere for a longer time by bouncing the IR around from one CO2 molecule to another, thus causing a build up of energy somehow.

That, however, is not possible because one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule. CO2 has a very narrow absorption wavelength and even the small change in wavelength that a "packet" of IR realises between absorption and emission precludes it being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

Here is the paper I referenced to ian and while he can grasp that the wavelength emitted is different than the wavelength absorbed, he seems to think that either no energy is lost or that somehow the CO2 molecule, by emitting multiple "photons" from the original absorbed "photon" can somehow regain that lost energy. Here, have a look at the explanation as to why ian's description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is not possible.

Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

 

[bobgnote]

You see those little numbers at the end of the sentence? Those are indicators of footnotes and tell you where to look for the corroborating link to substantiate the claim. It's sad that an imbecile like you with no knowledge of English or academia thinks you are somehow knowledgeable. Your mom must have told you you sang well too.

No problem, here is the link that was in the link I allready posted but which you are too stupid to figure out how to find.

"Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate."

Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World

You didn't post the sciencemag link, which is not readily evident at the wiki article, you stinking punkhole, not until you fucked up the quote and replied, after another 8 lines, for queer drama effect.

You are referring to a natural reaction, by organisms, which are able to react, to the increased acidification, see posts by O.R. and others, which you have buried, with punk-spam. Now would you like to go over arogonite concentrations, which indicate reefs and plankton will be in trouble, no matter how queer you are?

 

[westwall]

You see those little numbers at the end of the sentence? Those are indicators of footnotes and tell you where to look for the corroborating link to substantiate the claim. It's sad that an imbecile like you with no knowledge of English or academia thinks you are somehow knowledgeable. Your mom must have told you you sang well too.

No problem, here is the link that was in the link I allready posted but which you are too stupid to figure out how to find.

"Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world's oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate."

Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World

You didn't post the sciencemag link, which is not readily evident at the wiki article, you stinking punkhole, not until you fucked up the quote and replied, after another 8 lines, for queer drama effect.

You are referring to a natural reaction, by organisms, which are able to react, to the increased acidification, see posts by O.R. and others, which you have buried, with punk-spam. Now would you like to go over arogonite concentrations, which indicate reefs and plankton will be in trouble, no matter how queer you are?

You're so full of crap! If you knew how to read an encyclopedia entry it is quite clear you moron. Gosh you're stupid. Can you wipe your own ass without help?

I found a video of you waiting for your boyfriend. Thought i would share it with everyone....enjoy!

LiveLeak.com - Bath salts & Alcohol

 

[wirebender]

You're so full of crap! If you knew how to read an encyclopedia entry it is quite clear you moron. Gosh you're stupid. Can you wipe your own ass without help?

Have you ever seen anyone as stupid as him? I thought rocks was the quintecential AGW idiot, but bobo makes rocks look like a rhodes scholar.

 

[flacaltenn]

Its not a simple matter of being tuned to a specific frequency.. The absorption/emissions spectra consists of MULTIPLE "lines" at which the matter is free to accept/discharge (in this case) IR as RF energy. All this has nothing to do with heat transfer and thermo either. Only the radiative balance (input/output) of the material due to IR (electromagnetic) transmission.

But hey... Whatever predicts the right answer --- Right?

This was about ian's own ideas about how CO2 causes warming. He, and some other luke warmers believe that CO2 somehow keeps IR in the atmosphere for a longer time by bouncing the IR around from one CO2 molecule to another, thus causing a build up of energy somehow.

That, however, is not possible because one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule. CO2 has a very narrow absorption wavelength and even the small change in wavelength that a "packet" of IR realises between absorption and emission precludes it being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

Here is the paper I referenced to ian and while he can grasp that the wavelength emitted is different than the wavelength absorbed, he seems to think that either no energy is lost or that somehow the CO2 molecule, by emitting multiple "photons" from the original absorbed "photon" can somehow regain that lost energy. Here, have a look at the explanation as to why ian's description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is not possible.

Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

interesting presentation there.. Here's the simple deal.. This discussion always sounds to me like the "ThermoDynamics" class notes got mixed and shuffled with the "Fields and Waves" class notes. HEAT -- is transferred by agitation of molecules. Conduction, Convection, whatever. IR is transported by photons. It's an EM phenomenom. Different college classes --- different rules. But -- they are tied together because IR absorption/emission CHANGES the heat content of the matter. Air actually IS a heat conductor and various gases have different heat capacity and conduction properties. That's the Thermo part.

Also your reference is hung up on whether CO2 can re-radiate IR.. That's not even the Greenhouse.. All incident wavelengths contribute to surface heating. So energy that passed cleanly thru CO2 on the way in (like even UV) contributes. The SURFACE is the "wavelength convertor" to IR going skyward. Just like water vapor, CO2 is gonna keep you warm at nightime. (Except that GW science can't confirm that fact).

It all comes out right because the IR absorptive props of CO2 are largely filtered by water vapor. and thus it doesn't matter as much as AGW types want us to believe.

Peace out...

 

[bobgnote]

You're so full of crap! If you knew how to read an encyclopedia entry it is quite clear you moron. Gosh you're stupid. Can you wipe your own ass without help?

Have you ever seen anyone as stupid as him? I thought rocks was the quintecential AGW idiot, but bobo makes rocks look like a rhodes scholar.

To read that Science Magazine shit, I'd have to go through a subscription process. As for my allegation how you are into queer porn, that was correct. Can you bitches go through your grooming behavior, at some queer website? No? You are at an environment thread, posting smilies and queer porn, OK. Eat shit.

That means no links or graphs from Wally have yet turned up. But you guys sure like grooming and suggesting improbable media. You seem to have found queer porn, when I asked for a graph, ABOUT CO2 AND TEMPERATURE, Wally. Eat shit and die.