More Environmentalist Fraud!!!

[Old Rocks]

Paratropical floral extinction in the Late Palaeocene-Early Eocene | Journal of the Geological Society | Find Articles at BNET


Paratropical floral extinction in the Late Palaeocene-Early Eocene
Journal of the Geological Society, Mar 2007 by Harrington, Guy J, Jaramillo, Carlos A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 … 16 Next
Abstract:

The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) at c. 55.8 Ma marks a transient (c. 100 ka duration) interval of rapid greenhouse warming that had profound effects on marine and terrestrial biota. Plant communities responded rapidly with major compositional turnover. The long-term effects on tropical vegetation communities that stem from the brief period of global warming are unclear. We present pollen data from the paratropical US Gulf Coast (eastern Mississippi, western Alabama and Georgia), which had background Palaeogene mean annual temperatures of 26-27 °C. Sporomorph data (pollen and spores) demonstrate that taxonomic diversity increases over c. 1 Ma in the Late Palaeocene but this trend is replaced, with the first occurrences of taxa that mark the Early Eocene, by a pronounced extinction into the Early Eocene (c. 20% of the palynoflora). Taxonomic diversity also decreases by up to 38% in the Early Eocene. The timing of the extinction is not clearly resolved but may be restricted to the earliest part of the Early Eocene. Two richness estimators (Chao 2 and Jackknife 2) both demonstrate that Late Palaeocene samples contain significantly more taxa than those in the Early Eocene. Extinction on the US Gulf Coast proves that ancient tropical ecosystems were highly susceptible to changes in diversity mediated directly or indirectly by environmental change even during equable greenhouse climates in the early Palaeogene.

 

[KissMy]

Just remember those CO2 charts in that link OldRocks posted are a complete bogus fabrication. They are merging Arctic Ice core data with Mauna Loa, Hawaii which is near active CO2 spewing volcano. They are using Ice core method & switching to actual Mauna Loa reading at 1960. It is like comparing apples & oranges. It creates a straight up line on the chart. These 2 charts below are pure fiction.

 

[westwall]

And to answer you next question concerning water vapor, here is the real answer on that;

Given the IR absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O, why is it that we are concerned about CO2? - Yahoo! Answers

Wow old fraud have you come to the dark side after all? Your link pretty clearly sums it up. The effect of CO2 vs water vapor is MINISCULE if there is indeed any effect at all.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Well, I hope you can wade through some of the "stuff" here.
Nonsense such as

computer models have "fully interactive" clouds

water vapor is not a significant factor in heating because of precipitation

water vapor as feedback to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

But to answer your question, yes you are noticing what many stubbornly refuse to acknowledge - that water vapor has a MUCH greater potential for absorbing infrared than does CO2. Not only does it have a broader absorption spectra and exist in tremendously higher concentrations as you pointed out, it has a higher specific heat than does CO2. Combine this with the scientific principle that the IR emissions are more or less at the same wavelengths as absorption AND 75% of the Earth's surface is thus emitting at the optimal absorption spectrum of water, then you may become even more suspicious of some of the claims pointing to CO2 as THE culprit.

But, you're not the first to raise questions. Here is an interesting piece:
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Nettesheim1…

The range of Earth's IR emissions are put at 5um - 60um, relegating CO2's effective absorption band at 14-16 um, well within the absorption range of water.

And to address the "nonsense":

"Fully interactive" clouds is as scientifically meaningful as the "new and improved" claims of household cleanser manufacturers. For one, atmospheric physicists and meteorologists have been working on understanding clouds for far longer than climatologists. But we are to believe that the knowledge of cloud dynamics has mysteriously been imparted on climatologists like some Promethean gift? Why have they not shared their algorithms with meteorologists? And why has there been no significant shift in global warming predictions from the time when models DID NOT incorporate clouds? Are we to believe that they made a lucky guess and got it right the first time.

As long as there is a net global increase in temperatures, then precipitation has no effect on the overall water vapor content of the atmosphere. For every amount of water that precipitates, cooling the Earth, you would have have an equal or greater increase of evaporation elsewhere...otherwise you would have net cooling. You can't have it both ways. If anything, increased rates of precipitation when the overall concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, results in decreased atmospheric CO2, since the gas readily dissolves in the rain (that's why rainwater is acidic relative to boiled water).

Water vapor will act as a feedback to ANY temperature increase regardless of cause - including any forcing it creates independent of all other forcings except the Sun.

 

[IanC]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics site, well documented, with a lot of links. If you wish to do serious research, it is a good place to start.

Thanks Old Rocks. Your site didn't actually address my question but I will look it over more carefully when I have time. The one graph that did bother me was the one that called the increase in CO2 levels 'exponential'. The line itself does not show the typical severe increasing rise associated with graphs of that nature, although I suppose that CO2 production is proportional to the human population which is 'exponential' in growth. Is population control one of the main platforms for amelioration of global warming?

Ok, I think this is what you are looking for.

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum

thanks again Old Rocks. this site was much better at describing the absorption spectra of CO2, H2O and other gasses. it is interesting to see the windows for energy reaching the earth, and the windows for black body radiation which allows energy to escape.

Basically, CO2 stops infrared at 3 spectral regions. At present concentrations of CO2 it takes 10metres (33ft for you Americans) to completely absorb those wavelengths. If you double the amount of CO2 then it only takes 5m. If you halve the CO2 then it would take 20m (66ft) to absorb all the IR. Obviously practically no heat is leaving the earth at these wavelengths no matter what the concentration of CO2 is. I am simplifying the absorbtion of IR/re-emmission of black body radiation but there is no catastrophy even possible here.

Old Rocks- you seem like a thoughtful, reasonably well educated guy. Have you really thought a bunch of this stuff through? The hockey stick is a joke. Even with satellites, measuring the earth's temp to the nearest one degree is difficult. Can you really trust the estimates for 100, 500 and 1000 years ago? Why are you so sure that the same cyclical climate changes that have been going on since history was recorded are caused (THIS TIME) by mankind?

I totally agree that we have made an impact by burning fossil fuels, agriculture and industrial polution. But the scale is small...

 

[IanC]

TR 2/2003: O. Nettesheim: Climatology - Science or Ideology?

this is a link from above that didn't work (at least for me).

Most readers will probably not realize that there is a German award for ideology-free scientific research, known as the Woitschach Prize for Research. Certain media have mentioned that, in 1999, this prize was awarded to Dr. Wolfgang Thüne, a man who has a Masters degree in meteorology, for his book Der Treibhaus-Schwindel (The Greenhouse Hoax).[1] At first glance, it would appear that the notion of ideology-free science constitutes a pleonasm. However, the sponsors of the prize did indeed have an eye on reality. A look towards the past, into history, will also teach us that science has often been under the influence of ideology, and still is today. This is especially true for historiography,[2] a field in which ideologists frequently appear in the disguise of (self-proclaimed) scientists, or merely employ-somewhat selectively-the results of scientific work. A precarious position is occupied by all those scientists who need financial funding for their work, which they receive only as long as they work in line with the ideas of their sponsors.

ordinarily I shy away from 'conspiracy theories' but the more I look into AGW the more problems I see.

As everyone knows, a cloudless night sky leads to a strong cooling of the earth's surface, the sun's radiation taken up during the day being returned to the universe during the night as "temperature radiation". Doctor Thüne says in his paper:[8]

"The CO2 molecules in particular, with their absorption bands at 2.8 µm, 4.5 µm, and 15 µm, which are as characteristic and as unchangeable as a human fingerprint, have no effect on the daily course of temperature, because they cannot close the "open radiation window" between 7 and 13 µm. This would be valid even if the earth were surrounded by an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide".

Fundamentally, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat will flow only from a hot body to a cold one (in this case the universe). The "greenhouse effect" is thus only an illusion, and it is absurd to designate CO2 as a "greenhouse gas". Carbon dioxide is neither a glass roof nor does it reflect the heat radiation from earth. Even a greenhouse cools down during the night and must be heated during the winter months. The warming effect consists only in its ability to store the radiation it receives by preventing horizontal and vertical movements of the air. The glass walls do not prevent it from cooling down overnight on account of the radiation it gives off. It is thus unrealistic to attribute to CO2 the power to cause a "greenhouse effect" and the reduction of CO2-emissions, demanded by "climate experts," is without any scientific foundation.

how much damage to the layman's understanding has the term 'greenhouse effect' done? the planet Venus is boiling hot because of an atmosphere of 98% CO2 and the greenhouse effect while the planet Mars is frigid because of an atmosphere of 95% CO2 and presumably no greenhouse effect. (yes I know the atmosheres are different densities but look at how little CO2 it takes to trap all the radiation in its absorbtion spectra)

Apparently, the major incentive seems to be the abundant sources of money that the state is providing for research in this area. Meanwhile, the said effect has been raised to the level of an axiom, for example if we read in relevant publications:

"It is well known (!) that the greenhouse effect is caused by trace gases, CO2 in particular, which absorb the heat radiated from the surface of the earth".

Invariably, such authors invoke the broad consensus among scientists as "proof" of their theory. Does history not teach us, though, that revisionists who acted up against established teachings and helped new visions to be promoted were in general a minority or even a minority of one? The majority principle as applied in a democracy cannot seriously be used here to prove a point.

evidence, or even lack of evidence should be more important than general concensus amongst those who get funded for having the right idealogy. I was on the fence about AGW until I started investigating the flawed reasoning and science behind it. It is a terrible black eye for science and it undoubtedly will erode the respect and trust that ordinary people had in it. shame on those who overstated and misdirected flimsy evidence into 'settled scientific explanation'.

 

[Old Rocks]

And to answer you next question concerning water vapor, here is the real answer on that;

Given the IR absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O, why is it that we are concerned about CO2? - Yahoo! Answers

Wow old fraud have you come to the dark side after all? Your link pretty clearly sums it up. The effect of CO2 vs water vapor is MINISCULE if there is indeed any effect at all.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Well, I hope you can wade through some of the "stuff" here.
Nonsense such as

computer models have "fully interactive" clouds

water vapor is not a significant factor in heating because of precipitation

water vapor as feedback to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

But to answer your question, yes you are noticing what many stubbornly refuse to acknowledge - that water vapor has a MUCH greater potential for absorbing infrared than does CO2. Not only does it have a broader absorption spectra and exist in tremendously higher concentrations as you pointed out, it has a higher specific heat than does CO2. Combine this with the scientific principle that the IR emissions are more or less at the same wavelengths as absorption AND 75% of the Earth's surface is thus emitting at the optimal absorption spectrum of water, then you may become even more suspicious of some of the claims pointing to CO2 as THE culprit.

But, you're not the first to raise questions. Here is an interesting piece:
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Nettesheim1…

The range of Earth's IR emissions are put at 5um - 60um, relegating CO2's effective absorption band at 14-16 um, well within the absorption range of water.

And to address the "nonsense":

"Fully interactive" clouds is as scientifically meaningful as the "new and improved" claims of household cleanser manufacturers. For one, atmospheric physicists and meteorologists have been working on understanding clouds for far longer than climatologists. But we are to believe that the knowledge of cloud dynamics has mysteriously been imparted on climatologists like some Promethean gift? Why have they not shared their algorithms with meteorologists? And why has there been no significant shift in global warming predictions from the time when models DID NOT incorporate clouds? Are we to believe that they made a lucky guess and got it right the first time.

As long as there is a net global increase in temperatures, then precipitation has no effect on the overall water vapor content of the atmosphere. For every amount of water that precipitates, cooling the Earth, you would have have an equal or greater increase of evaporation elsewhere...otherwise you would have net cooling. You can't have it both ways. If anything, increased rates of precipitation when the overall concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, results in decreased atmospheric CO2, since the gas readily dissolves in the rain (that's why rainwater is acidic relative to boiled water).

Water vapor will act as a feedback to ANY temperature increase regardless of cause - including any forcing it creates independent of all other forcings except the Sun.[/QUOTE]

Well, it is quite evident that our faux geologist does not understand what a feedback effect is. Not at all surprising.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks Old Rocks. Your site didn't actually address my question but I will look it over more carefully when I have time. The one graph that did bother me was the one that called the increase in CO2 levels 'exponential'. The line itself does not show the typical severe increasing rise associated with graphs of that nature, although I suppose that CO2 production is proportional to the human population which is 'exponential' in growth. Is population control one of the main platforms for amelioration of global warming?

Ok, I think this is what you are looking for.

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum

thanks again Old Rocks. this site was much better at describing the absorption spectra of CO2, H2O and other gasses. it is interesting to see the windows for energy reaching the earth, and the windows for black body radiation which allows energy to escape.

Basically, CO2 stops infrared at 3 spectral regions. At present concentrations of CO2 it takes 10metres (33ft for you Americans) to completely absorb those wavelengths. If you double the amount of CO2 then it only takes 5m. If you halve the CO2 then it would take 20m (66ft) to absorb all the IR. Obviously practically no heat is leaving the earth at these wavelengths no matter what the concentration of CO2 is. I am simplifying the absorbtion of IR/re-emmission of black body radiation but there is no catastrophy even possible here.

Not only are you simplifying it, you have it completely wrong. There is a section in the American Institute of physics site, the History of CO2, that addresses what your are speaking of. And it does not work the way you describe at all.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Old Rocks- you seem like a thoughtful, reasonably well educated guy. Have you really thought a bunch of this stuff through? The hockey stick is a joke.

A joke that has been verified by many, many other scientists. Yes, the latest graphs are a bit more bumpy than the first, reflecting better data, and better interpretation of the proxies, but the conclusion is the same.

When you make a statement such as this, you had best be able to back it up with real data from real scientists.

Even with satellites, measuring the earth's temp to the nearest one degree is difficult. Can you really trust the estimates for 100, 500 and 1000 years ago? Why are you so sure that the same cyclical climate changes that have been going on since history was recorded are caused (THIS TIME) by mankind?

We have a pretty good understanding of the forces driving the cyclical changes, from the short ones like the La Nina, El Nino cycles, to the long ones such as the Milankovic Cycles. By those very cycles, we should be experiancing a slow descent into another ice age. Our climate, by those cycles, should be much more like that of the Little Ice Age, than what we presently see.

I totally agree that we have made an impact by burning fossil fuels, agriculture and industrial polution. But the scale is small...

No, Ian, the scale is not small. I wish it were. But you can see the scale simply by looking at the melt rate for the major glaciers worldwide. A rate that is accelerating.

SOTC: Glaciers

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

USGS Report Shows a "Dramatic" Decline in U.S. Glaciers | Global Warming is Real

 

[Old Rocks]

Just remember those CO2 charts in that link OldRocks posted are a complete bogus fabrication. They are merging Arctic Ice core data with Mauna Loa, Hawaii which is near active CO2 spewing volcano. They are using Ice core method & switching to actual Mauna Loa reading at 1960. It is like comparing apples & oranges. It creates a straight up line on the chart. These 2 charts below are pure fiction.

Your proof of which is?

You make a bald assertation of fraud by thousands of scientists, then show nothing at all to back such an assertation up. Doesn't work, makes you look like a blathering fool, such as our faux geologist.

And the site at Mauna Loa is just the first of the sites measures GHGs in the atmosphere. There are now many, many others, and they read withing 2 or 3 ppm of the one on Mauna Loa. Are you aware of that, or did you choose to ignore it?

In fact, a California company manufactures a simple, easily deployed GHG analyzer.

Greenhouse Gas Measurements | Picarro

 

[IanC]

Ok, I think this is what you are looking for.

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum

thanks again Old Rocks. this site was much better at describing the absorption spectra of CO2, H2O and other gasses. it is interesting to see the windows for energy reaching the earth, and the windows for black body radiation which allows energy to escape.

Basically, CO2 stops infrared at 3 spectral regions. At present concentrations of CO2 it takes 10metres (33ft for you Americans) to completely absorb those wavelengths. If you double the amount of CO2 then it only takes 5m. If you halve the CO2 then it would take 20m (66ft) to absorb all the IR. Obviously practically no heat is leaving the earth at these wavelengths no matter what the concentration of CO2 is. I am simplifying the absorbtion of IR/re-emmission of black body radiation but there is no catastrophy even possible here.

Not only are you simplifying it, you have it completely wrong. There is a section in the American Institute of physics site, the History of CO2, that addresses what your are speaking of. And it does not work the way you describe at all.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Old Rocks- you seem like a thoughtful, reasonably well educated guy. Have you really thought a bunch of this stuff through? The hockey stick is a joke.

A joke that has been verified by many, many other scientists. Yes, the latest graphs are a bit more bumpy than the first, reflecting better data, and better interpretation of the proxies, but the conclusion is the same.

When you make a statement such as this, you had best be able to back it up with real data from real scientists.

Even with satellites, measuring the earth's temp to the nearest one degree is difficult. Can you really trust the estimates for 100, 500 and 1000 years ago? Why are you so sure that the same cyclical climate changes that have been going on since history was recorded are caused (THIS TIME) by mankind?

We have a pretty good understanding of the forces driving the cyclical changes, from the short ones like the La Nina, El Nino cycles, to the long ones such as the Milankovic Cycles. By those very cycles, we should be experiancing a slow descent into another ice age. Our climate, by those cycles, should be much more like that of the Little Ice Age, than what we presently see.

I totally agree that we have made an impact by burning fossil fuels, agriculture and industrial polution. But the scale is small...

No, Ian, the scale is not small. I wish it were. But you can see the scale simply by looking at the melt rate for the major glaciers worldwide. A rate that is accelerating.

SOTC: Glaciers

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

USGS Report Shows a "Dramatic" Decline in U.S. Glaciers | Global Warming is Real

Old Rocks- I don't think anyone is denying that there has been some warming of the climate. But you seem to be saying that it is ALL due to manmade emmissions and I believe it is natural cycles plus a small fraction due to man. You put up glacial retreat as proof but how is it any different than reaction to the increased temperature? Does the CO2 somehow combine with the ice to increase the thermal exchange with air?


I don't know what the size of man's contributions is. But I do know that a lot of the claims made by warming alarmists are unsupportable by the evidence. Would the hockey stick have remained straight if no one had pointed out that it didn't reflect the medieval warm period and the little ice age? Going back and changing to make large effects like that appeardoesn't inspire confidence in me. And yet we are supposed to believe him when he makes estimates of temperatures to a fraction of a degree going back a thousand years. Sorry, but the error bars in these computer simulations overwhelm the results. And every time the predictions fail to match reality they just go back and rejigger the figures and proclaim long term accuracy.

Jus sayin

 

[KissMy]

Just remember those CO2 charts in that link OldRocks posted are a complete bogus fabrication. They are merging Arctic Ice core data with Mauna Loa, Hawaii which is near active CO2 spewing volcano. They are using Ice core method & switching to actual Mauna Loa reading at 1960. It is like comparing apples & oranges. It creates a straight up line on the chart. These 2 charts below are pure fiction.

Your proof of which is?

You make a bald assertation of fraud by thousands of scientists, then show nothing at all to back such an assertation up. Doesn't work, makes you look like a blathering fool, such as our faux geologist.

And the site at Mauna Loa is just the first of the sites measures GHGs in the atmosphere. There are now many, many others, and they read withing 2 or 3 ppm of the one on Mauna Loa. Are you aware of that, or did you choose to ignore it?

In fact, a California company manufactures a simple, easily deployed GHG analyzer.

Greenhouse Gas Measurements | Picarro

Yea, Where was your GHG analyzer hundreds of years ago? They assume that a 400,000 ice core reading somehow compares to Mauna Loa weather station. CO2 could have leached out of those old ass ice cores. They make many assumptions. They cant prove how old those ice cores are. The layers they count as years are just snow storm layers. Below are pictures of an airplane named Glaicer Girl being cut out of Greenland's ice sheet, the same place they get these ice cores from. This plane went down with the "lost squadron" in 1942. All these planes were found under 268 feet of ice in less than 50 years. The people who excavated the plane said there were hundreds of layers of ice over those planes. Just look at those pictures, there hundreds of "Annual Layers" of ice covering these planes when there should have only been 50. The thickest part of Greenland's ice sheet is less than 10,000 feet thick. So if 268 feet of ice form every 50 years that equals 5.36 feet per year. That means that all the ice on Greenland likely piled up there over about a 1866 year period of time.

 

[code1211]

So what if we're "within normal limits" now? The whole point, if GHGs continue to rise, warming is inevitable. The REAL fraud is that the deniers are creating a generation of scientific Know-Nothings, who think that all science is politically motivated, when they themselves are the main culprits.

And yet the disappearing glaciers are now receding to a point just about equal to the point that they were at about 5000 years ago.

The actual rate of warming is on pace to just about be absolutely consistant across the last 2000 years.

The temperatures were higher while the CO2 was lower at the end of each Interglacial for the last half million years.

If your estimates of the cause effect relation of CO2 and temperature are so exact, why do they not exist in the real world?

 

[code1211]

CO2 drive temperature increase when the evidence says the opposite is true.

Could you present that evidence. "They" say that there's an 800 year delay in something or other?!?! Could you show evidence that CO2 molecules hold infra-red radiation 800 years before re-emitting it? You seem to be merely parroting talking points you heard elsewhere. Got any knowledge or ideas of your own? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking about here. The lag of the rise of CO2 behind the rise of temperature globally is fairly well documented and understood. It has nothing to do with any molecule of CO2 "holding" infra red radiation.

Our ecosystem sequesters CO2 by freezing it in permafrost areas of land and releases the CO2 when those areas thaw. That is what creates the lag. Very consistent and very explainable.

800 years is about as long as I've seen for the estimate of the "lag". However, the correlation is that the temperature forecasts the rise of CO2. Those who claim the reverse correlation is supported by history are really reaching. Old Rocks is fond of pointing to about 3 examples in the last 150 million or so. Every other example supports the fact that CO2 change in the real world is driven by temperature change.

 

[code1211]

Yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all energy decreases towards entropy. So riddle me this batman, how do you get MORE energy by passing it through a CO2 membrane? According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, everytime there is an interaction you LOSE energy, you are the people who claim that in the interaction of solar energy and the atmosphere you get MORE energy. Try following your own advice and read a good book, one that has actual real science in it.

You folks are chasing the proverbial perpetual motion machine.

Damn, you are either really stupid, or good at pretending to be a total idiot.

And of course we all know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics also disproves evolution. Walleyes, you are getting more pathetic on a daily basis.

Excuse me? The Second Law makes no statements at all about evolution you twit. It is a fundamental understanding of the universe that energy is not created it is merely changed in state. Chemical energy is converted to heat which can then be used to power a machine to generate electricity.

At every stage of the process energy is lost. The trick is to lose as little energy as possible in each stage, thus all that silly nonsense we are allways carping about relating to efficiencies, which you bozo's can't seem to get through your thick skulls.

So the question old fraud is how can you take 100 units of whatever you want to call it and pass it through the atmosphere (one stage) hit the Earth (second stage) bounce back up through the atmosphere (third stage) strip a little of that energy away from the outgoing radiation (fourth stage) bounce BACK down to the Earth again (fifth stage) and hit the Earth again (sixth stage). And every time you do that you lose energy. So how is that perpetual motion machine working there for you?

I think this probably works because the energy from the Sun is immense. Much is lost, but with every step to avoid loosing it, less is lost. No matter how much is lost with every additional step, if any at all is retained, that is a retention, and therefore a gain, that was not realized before.