How do you feel about snowball earth and the reasoning behind it?

[mamooth]

No one writes functions like that and not use them, dimwit.

You're unfamiliar with programming. So noted.

I did show the evidence, but you reject it via ad hominem.

You didn't even try to show a data trail between that code snippet and published results. You posted the snippet along with a list of meaningless red herrings, and then declared your conspiracy theory to be proven. However, "because my cult says so!" is not particularly convincing to those outside of your cult.

No, not all just the one locale, but similar problems with data being lost corrupted, faked, etc, have popped up among AGW fraudsters all over the world, from glaciers that aren't really melting to polar bears that are not drowning to Australian temperature records that no longer include the raw data at all.

And each time, the denialists claiming such a thing were revealed to be lying sacks of shit. That's a big reason why almost the entire world now correctly defines denialism as a liars' cult.

However, since you're cut off in your cult bubble, you have no way of knowing such things. Your cult has told you that all non-cult sources are part of the conspiracy against the cult. It's a standard way by which cults control their members.

 

[westwall]

Here is one of the latest (2008) studies and it deals with the recovery from the extinction event. Plant recovery was very slow, which is consistent with cold. Were it warm the plant life would have recovered much faster. And, as any good zoologist will tell you, if there are no plants for critters to eat, there are no critters for bigger critters to eat.

"There are several meanings for the term ‘recovery’ after mass extinctions. Past studies have revealed that faunal revival after a devastating ecological event may follow a pattern similar to ecological succession (Sole et al. 2002), and recovery may be considered as the point at which the model is complete and the new ecosystem is stable. On both the scale of modern ecological recovery and recovery from mass extinction, disaster (‘weedy’ or generalist) taxa are known to insinuate themselves into empty guilds, pushing the boundaries of their geographical range and ecospace. Early Triassic terrestrial ecosystems are clearly dominated by a small number of genera, most notably the dicynodont Lystrosaurus, which accounted for approximately 90% of terrestrial vertebrates (Benton 1983). Disaster taxa then experienced rapid turnover in the time immediately following the event, later giving way to more specialized organisms (Benton 2003).

Recovery can also be viewed as a return to pre-extinction conditions, for example the numerical recovery of taxa. Globally, this type of recovery happened quickly after the end-Permian event by the Olenekian (250–245 Myr ago), but then the diversity fell again (figure 1), either as a result of displaced disaster taxa that had filled empty guilds or the devastation caused by another extinction pulse at the end of the Olenekian. In contrast, the ecological recovery of tetrapods and plants was slow, and lost guilds and trophic levels were not readily refilled (Retallack et al. 1996; Benton et al. 2004; Grauvogel-Stamm & Ash 2005)."


"A rapid loss of sediment-binding vegetation was responsible for a basin-wide change from low-energy meandering streams to high-energy braided rivers in the Early Triassic of Russia, South Africa, Australia, India and Spain (Newell et al. 1999; Ward et al. 2000; Benton in press). Also, the 7 Myr ‘coal gap’ is the result of an insufficient amount of plant material to form coal deposits, and hence little food for large browsing animals. Permian levels of plant diversity were not reached again until the Late Triassic (230 Myr ago; Retallack et al. 1996)."


Recovery from the most profound mass extinction of all time

 

[westwall]

If conditions in the present are different, the present will not act like the past.

For some reason, that very basic logic is something denialists have never been capable of grasping. That's the main reason why they're laughed at in the world of science. Scientists are good at logic, so they instantly recognize how awful the logic of the denialists is.

Incorrect. The present Always follows the past. Always has, and always will. That's what physics does for you. Physical laws are immutable. They MUST react the same. Put another way, the same CO2 is on this planet as was here when it was created. NOTHING has been added.

You are a tragically misinformed person, WESTWALL

Really? How so? Be specific.

 

[westwall]

Volcanism, mass extinction, and carbon isotope fluctuations in the Middle Permian of China | Jason R Ali - Academia.edu

The close temporal link between the onset of eruptions and extinction suggests a cause-and-effect scenario. Cooling and acid rain (caused by SO2 effusion and sulfate aerosol formation)and consequent environmental deterioration are candidates for this link ( 18, 19). The dominance of pyroclastic volcanism (rather than more quiescent-style flood basalt eruptions) in the initial eruptive stages of the Emeishan province and the large scale of the flows (30 to 200 m thick)suggest that such effects are likely to have been severe. The subsequent negative shift of C isotope values is too large to be attributed to relatively heavy volcanic CO2 (d 13 C =– 5‰), but it may record the release of much lighter thermogenic C from the site of volcanism (20).This was in the aftermath of the biotic crisis, but the high diversity of the post-extinction biota suggests that the light C flux is not linked to any prolongation of the environmental stress that caused the extinction.Our study of the volcano-sedimentary recordof southwest China reveals that the Middle Permian marine crisis precisely coincided with the onset of Emeishan volcanism. This provides evidence for a potential link between mass ex-tinction and the eruption of this igneous province, although the absolute time scale for the event is not yet known. The subsequent negative d 13C excursion implies that the C cycle was destabilized for some time after the extinctions, perhaps by C release from thermogenic sources.

Let me know the next time a major eruption raises the temperature. So far, in recorded history, that has never occurred. Instead quite the opposite has occurred. Every time a volcano erupts there is a near immediate global cool down.

 

[Old Rocks]

Volcanism, mass extinction, and carbon isotope fluctuations in the Middle Permian of China | Jason R Ali - Academia.edu

The close temporal link between the onset of eruptions and extinction suggests a cause-and-effect scenario. Cooling and acid rain (caused by SO2 effusion and sulfate aerosol formation)and consequent environmental deterioration are candidates for this link ( 18, 19). The dominance of pyroclastic volcanism (rather than more quiescent-style flood basalt eruptions) in the initial eruptive stages of the Emeishan province and the large scale of the flows (30 to 200 m thick)suggest that such effects are likely to have been severe. The subsequent negative shift of C isotope values is too large to be attributed to relatively heavy volcanic CO2 (d 13 C =– 5‰), but it may record the release of much lighter thermogenic C from the site of volcanism (20).This was in the aftermath of the biotic crisis, but the high diversity of the post-extinction biota suggests that the light C flux is not linked to any prolongation of the environmental stress that caused the extinction.Our study of the volcano-sedimentary recordof southwest China reveals that the Middle Permian marine crisis precisely coincided with the onset of Emeishan volcanism. This provides evidence for a potential link between mass ex-tinction and the eruption of this igneous province, although the absolute time scale for the event is not yet known. The subsequent negative d 13C excursion implies that the C cycle was destabilized for some time after the extinctions, perhaps by C release from thermogenic sources.

Let me know the next time a major eruption raises the temperature. So far, in recorded history, that has never occurred. Instead quite the opposite has occurred. Every time a volcano erupts there is a near immediate global cool down.

In recorded history, we have not had a trapp type eruption. We have not even had the more common large caldera eruption. However, we do know that trapp eruptions have occurred because of the vast amounts of lava that are in the Siberian, Deccan, and Columbia basalts, just to mention three such eruptions. We also know, from several proxy sources, that when these occur, they emit enormous amounts of CO2, and trigger further GHG emissions from the resultant clathrate emissions, and also, if the volcanic dikes impign on coal, as happened with the Siberian Trapps, and also the Chinese eruption, that vast amounts of CH4 are emitted.

By the very site that you linked to, the Siberian Trapp eruptions resulted in a very rapid increase of 6 C in a very short time. In fact, whenever we find Trapp type eruptions, we find rapid increases in GHGs, and rapid increases in temperatures.

 

[westwall]

Volcanism, mass extinction, and carbon isotope fluctuations in the Middle Permian of China | Jason R Ali - Academia.edu

The close temporal link between the onset of eruptions and extinction suggests a cause-and-effect scenario. Cooling and acid rain (caused by SO2 effusion and sulfate aerosol formation)and consequent environmental deterioration are candidates for this link ( 18, 19). The dominance of pyroclastic volcanism (rather than more quiescent-style flood basalt eruptions) in the initial eruptive stages of the Emeishan province and the large scale of the flows (30 to 200 m thick)suggest that such effects are likely to have been severe. The subsequent negative shift of C isotope values is too large to be attributed to relatively heavy volcanic CO2 (d 13 C =– 5‰), but it may record the release of much lighter thermogenic C from the site of volcanism (20).This was in the aftermath of the biotic crisis, but the high diversity of the post-extinction biota suggests that the light C flux is not linked to any prolongation of the environmental stress that caused the extinction.Our study of the volcano-sedimentary recordof southwest China reveals that the Middle Permian marine crisis precisely coincided with the onset of Emeishan volcanism. This provides evidence for a potential link between mass ex-tinction and the eruption of this igneous province, although the absolute time scale for the event is not yet known. The subsequent negative d 13C excursion implies that the C cycle was destabilized for some time after the extinctions, perhaps by C release from thermogenic sources.

Let me know the next time a major eruption raises the temperature. So far, in recorded history, that has never occurred. Instead quite the opposite has occurred. Every time a volcano erupts there is a near immediate global cool down.

In recorded history, we have not had a trapp type eruption. We have not even had the more common large caldera eruption. However, we do know that trapp eruptions have occurred because of the vast amounts of lava that are in the Siberian, Deccan, and Columbia basalts, just to mention three such eruptions. We also know, from several proxy sources, that when these occur, they emit enormous amounts of CO2, and trigger further GHG emissions from the resultant clathrate emissions, and also, if the volcanic dikes impign on coal, as happened with the Siberian Trapps, and also the Chinese eruption, that vast amounts of CH4 are emitted.

By the very site that you linked to, the Siberian Trapp eruptions resulted in a very rapid increase of 6 C in a very short time. In fact, whenever we find Trapp type eruptions, we find rapid increases in GHGs, and rapid increases in temperatures.

That the Trapp eruptions occurred is no doubt. I have been to both locations. However, methane is STILL an even more trace gas than CO2, and the one thing we know is emitted in huge quantities from volcanic eruptions is SO2. We KNOW that those emissions lower temperatures. Add to the the constant sulfuric acid rain beating down all over the northern hemisphere for hundreds of thousands of years and it becomes easy to understand why no plants grew in the northern hemisphere for millions of years.

So far the actual evidence we have of a warm world does not support the theory that warmth killed anything.

 

[Old Rocks]

While the initial aerosols would have led to a preciptious cooling, that cooling would have lasted only a decade or so at the most. Even though it was repeated multiple times. Because SO2 and the other aerosols rain out of the atmosphere rather quickly. But CO2, and CH4 have much longer lifespans in the atmosphere. Also, note that while the aerosols stayed mostly in the northern hemisphere, both hemispheres suffered the extinction. The GHGs would spread evenly over the whole of the Earth, unlike the aerosols.

And the example of what happens when there is a rapid drawdown of the GHGs. When there has been a major change in the atmospheric composition, whether from life adding oxygen and taking out CO2, or from the chemical weathering resulting from tectonic mountain building, there have been glacial periods. In the Ordivician, it was the Appalachians, today it is the Himalayas.

The combination of the acid rain, major increase in UV reaching the surface, and the whiplash of cold, then hot, would have been a serioius detriment to plant survival. Add the very extreme rainfalls as indicated by the almost instantaneous switch from meandering silt filled river basins to braided channels with cobbles and even boulders far from the mountain source, and you have an arguement for heat and rain. For, both in Russia and in South Africa, we see this pattern, we do not see tillites.

 

[SwimExpert]

There's like 3 video's about it.

And I guess that makes you the expert about it.

This only ended when the volcano's released extreme amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

1 - We don't know if a "snowball Earth" ever occurred.

2 - Even if we assume for a moment that it did occur, we don't know the precise mechanisms by which it ended.

3 - The hypotheses regarding how it would have ended are....well, hypotheses.

4 - While CO2 is part of those hypotheses, it is only a small part. Prevailing hypotheses suggest a complex series of interrelated events.

5 - The atmospheric level of CO2 that is hypothesized in these possible explanations is well over 300 times current atmospheric levels (and if I recall correctly, would be somewhere around 15% of total atmospheric content, compared to the current level which is less than .1%). More importantly, these things are hypothesized against the backdrop of a snowball Earth environment.

 

[racewright]

While the initial aerosols would have led to a preciptious cooling, that cooling would have lasted only a decade or so at the most. Even though it was repeated multiple times. Because SO2 and the other aerosols rain out of the atmosphere rather quickly. But CO2, and CH4 have much longer lifespans in the atmosphere. Also, note that while the aerosols stayed mostly in the northern hemisphere, both hemispheres suffered the extinction. The GHGs would spread evenly over the whole of the Earth, unlike the aerosols.

And the example of what happens when there is a rapid drawdown of the GHGs. When there has been a major change in the atmospheric composition, whether from life adding oxygen and taking out CO2, or from the chemical weathering resulting from tectonic mountain building, there have been glacial periods. In the Ordivician, it was the Appalachians, today it is the Himalayas.

The combination of the acid rain, major increase in UV reaching the surface, and the whiplash of cold, then hot, would have been a serioius detriment to plant survival. Add the very extreme rainfalls as indicated by the almost instantaneous switch from meandering silt filled river basins to braided channels with cobbles and even boulders far from the mountain source, and you have an arguement for heat and rain. For, both in Russia and in South Africa, we see this pattern, we do not see tillites.

You must be pretty old to remember all this stuff. Did they have McDonald's back then.

 

[editec]

Incorrect. The present Always follows the past. Always has, and always will. That's what physics does for you. Physical laws are immutable. They MUST react the same. Put another way, the same CO2 is on this planet as was here when it was created. NOTHING has been added.

You are a tragically misinformed person, WESTWALL

Really? How so? Be specific.

You are mistaking the conservation of matter and energy and and applying that where it obviously does not belong.

CO2 is not an elemental atom, it is a molecule made up of atoms of carbon and oxygen

The amount of CO2 in the world is not static and is changing all the time.

Seriously, you are so misinformed that explaining it demands that I teach you fundamental chemisty.

Not my job, dude.

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

 

[SwimExpert]

The amount of CO2 in the world is not static and is changing all the time.

So why is nobody talking about our rapidly declining level of oxygen in the atmosphere?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are a tragically misinformed person, WESTWALL

Really? How so? Be specific.

You are mistaking the conservation of matter and energy and and applying that where it obviously does not belong.

CO2 is not an elemental atom, it is a molecule made up of atoms of carbon and oxygen

The amount of CO2 in the world is not static and is changing all the time.

Seriously, you are so misinformed that explaining it demands that I teach you fundamental chemisty.

Not my job, dude.

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Good Lord, what Westwall is saying, as I understood him, was that the same total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere and oceans is roughly still the same.

In fact they are lower than peak during the last 350,000,000.

 

[westwall]

While the initial aerosols would have led to a preciptious cooling, that cooling would have lasted only a decade or so at the most. Even though it was repeated multiple times. Because SO2 and the other aerosols rain out of the atmosphere rather quickly. But CO2, and CH4 have much longer lifespans in the atmosphere. Also, note that while the aerosols stayed mostly in the northern hemisphere, both hemispheres suffered the extinction. The GHGs would spread evenly over the whole of the Earth, unlike the aerosols.

And the example of what happens when there is a rapid drawdown of the GHGs. When there has been a major change in the atmospheric composition, whether from life adding oxygen and taking out CO2, or from the chemical weathering resulting from tectonic mountain building, there have been glacial periods. In the Ordivician, it was the Appalachians, today it is the Himalayas.

The combination of the acid rain, major increase in UV reaching the surface, and the whiplash of cold, then hot, would have been a serioius detriment to plant survival. Add the very extreme rainfalls as indicated by the almost instantaneous switch from meandering silt filled river basins to braided channels with cobbles and even boulders far from the mountain source, and you have an arguement for heat and rain. For, both in Russia and in South Africa, we see this pattern, we do not see tillites.

A decade? How do you figure that? The Deccan Traps erupted for what 30,000 years? The Siberian Traps for a million at its peak level... You're not going to get a 10 year cooling period when the eruption is continuous like that. It will be a continuous period of cooling.

 

[westwall]

You are a tragically misinformed person, WESTWALL

Really? How so? Be specific.

You are mistaking the conservation of matter and energy and and applying that where it obviously does not belong.

CO2 is not an elemental atom, it is a molecule made up of atoms of carbon and oxygen

The amount of CO2 in the world is not static and is changing all the time.

Seriously, you are so misinformed that explaining it demands that I teach you fundamental chemisty.

Not my job, dude.

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Yes it is. That was my point. Nothing that we have now is new. It was all here before. Carbon is uncommon in its elemental form (because it binds so readily with so many things). It is extremely common in its CO2 phase state. It's next most common phase state is probably in life, followed by CaCO3 otherwise known as limestone. Carbon, like all elements is CONSTANTLY changing phase, it is not being made. What was here 3 billion years ago is still here. Only its phase has changed, and more to the point it is known that when the saturation level of CO2 reaches a certain point limestone is the result. We also know that limestone hasn't been created for at least 5 million years.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes it is. That was my point. Nothing that we have now is new. It was all here before. Carbon is uncommon in its elemental form (because it binds so readily with so many things). It is extremely common in its CO2 phase state. It's next most common phase state is probably in life, followed by CaCO3 otherwise known as limestone. Carbon, like all elements is CONSTANTLY changing phase, it is not being made. What was here 3 billion years ago is still here. Only its phase has changed, and more to the point it is known that when the saturation level of CO2 reaches a certain point limestone is the result. We also know that limestone hasn't been created for at least 5 million years.

So, I think your point more accurately is that we have no new carbon. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has constantly been used and replenished throughout a significant portion of the earth's history, through weathering and biological mechanisms. Incidentally, I think that is essentially the same thing that Editec is trying to say as well.