Inconvenient Bullshit.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html

Al was found and defrosted.

What we need to do is build more nuclear plants and locate stuff in places where wind, solar, bear farts, and hydro-electric are feasible and viable. But your EXXON stock would go to hell in a New York minute if we did, and plenty of power companies own coal mines.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's a very good article, thanks.

 

[LaRocha]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html

Al was found and defrosted.

What we need to do is build more nuclear plants and locate stuff in places where wind, solar, bear farts, and hydro-electric are feasible and viable. But your EXXON stock would go to hell in a New York minute if we did, and plenty of power companies own coal mines.

You think Exxon isn't planning for a future where they're the number one producer of what's now deemed alternative energy? A couple years ago they were behind the other oil giants, but they're on top of things now. GE and Westinghouse are the number one benefactors of new nuke infrastructure. These zillion dollar companies aren't stupid, they last for centuries for a reason.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LAROCHA

Mmmmm they like to think they invented oligarchy but plenty of others tried to control the market and got their asses kicked; you just cannot anticipate where the next great idea will come from. Great ideas come like ants into the kitchen.

Someone will dream up something to close EXXON's doors, just like EXXON put the livery stable out of business.

 

[WRJames]

We were supposed to be running out of oil in the 70's, remember? Actually, we were going to run out of everything, right away, and people of my generation were not going to be able to live nearly as well as their parents had.

 

[SeaCat]

There are no miracle cures for the energy crisis, and crisis it is. Hydrocarbon Fuel Supplies are limited and the demands upon this supply are growing.

Hydrothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal and Hydro sources of power will help but they are limited in their scope of usage.

Nuclear Power is also usefull but it too is limited because the sources of fuel are small.

The above sources of energy will not cure the problem although they will help. (They would help more of NIMBY'ism would stop rearing it's ugly head but don't hold your breath on that.)

What is the answer? No one knows what the answer is.

Cold Fusion? That would help but there have been no real breakthroughs in that research.

Zero Point Energy? As far as I know no one is looking into that. It has been decalred to be bunk.

Alternative fuels? (ie. Bio-Fuels.) There is a lot of research into this but there is also a lot of debate about this. Many feel that this is taking away from the food supplies for the world but I have yet to see any evidence of this.

I feel, and this is my personal opinion so take it for what it is, that we need to work on using the technology we have now and use that to help alleviate the problem as we push for the pursuit of all forms of alternate energy. Give more money to the exploration of things like Cold Fusion.

Cat

 

[JackLuis]

There are no miracle cures for the energy crisis, and crisis it is. Hydrocarbon Fuel Supplies are limited and the demands upon this supply are growing.
-

Alternative fuels? (ie. Bio-Fuels.) There is a lot of research into this but there is also a lot of debate about this. Many feel that this is taking away from the food supplies for the world but I have yet to see any evidence of this.


Cat

Cat, corn ethanol use has caused the price of corn to rise and has pulled a large amount of the corn from Mexico. The cost of tortillas has skyrocketed. Makes it hard to be Mexican.

The demand for corn has caused us to plant more and use more oil derived fertilizers and fuel to harvest it. Ethanol is a net loss in energy also.

However the recent rise of Alge farming for biofuel is promising and alge is cheap. Hardly anyone eats it.

 

[trysail]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia



The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.



The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.



The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.





What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?



1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.



2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.



3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:



· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.



4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.



5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.



6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.



7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.



8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.



9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.





Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?



10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.



11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.



12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.





How independent are the other two international data sets?



13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.




The Institute of Physics
February 2010

 

[PoppingTom]

You talking bullshit, trysail.

 

[trysail]

You talking bullshit, trysail.

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm



Excuse me? Did you bother to use the link? If you have a problem, direct your comments to Parliament or the Institute of Physics. I didn't write it; they did.

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?



1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.



2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.



3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:



· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.



4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.



5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.



6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.



7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.



8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.



9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.





Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?


10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.



11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.



12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.





How independent are the other two international data sets?


13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.




The Institute of Physics
February 2010

 

[PoppingTom]

I didn't write it; they did.

That's why I say, YOU talking bullshit.

You link and C&P the whole day without staying on topic.

 

[trysail]

That's why I say, YOU talking bullshit.

You link and C&P the whole day without staying on topic.

http://forum.literotica.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38


The time has come to cease attempting to stoop to your level. Your writing and reading comprehension is dismal.
Auf wiedersehen.



"Never try to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
-Robert A. Heinlein

 

[PoppingTom]

The time has come to cease attempting to stoop to your level. Your writing and reading comprehension is dismal.
Auf wiedersehen.

Du mich auch. Bye Bye.

 

[Dragonlipz]

You talking bullshit, trysail.

As usual....but he's gotta go wit wot he no an he doan no much.......

 

[trysail]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4702.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm

 

[DeeZire]

Trysail! Dude! Al Gore mentioned you in his op-ed.

Over the years, as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart.

Simultaneously, changes in America’s political system — including the replacement of newspapers and magazines by television as the dominant medium of communication — conferred powerful advantages on wealthy advocates of unrestrained markets and weakened advocates of legal and regulatory reforms. Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment. And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in the marketplace.

 

[trysail]

Trysail! Dude! Al Gore mentioned you in his op-ed.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/1553052913_2f3b379216_o.gif​

Congratulations! You have added one more in an endless series of extraordinarily stupid posts and ad homs. You are clearly quite desperate ( and boring ) because that's all you ever do. You just hurl insults and tripe and stage temper tantrums. Your credibility is destroyed— mainly because you don't have any actual science. Next time, bring some— eh?

It has been amply demonstrated that Mr. Gore has repeatedly played fast and loose with facts— and in certain cases— has resorted to outright fabulation. How 'bout them polar bears?

What did you think of the Institute of Physics statement to Parliament? What's your explanation for Phil Jones' admission that there "has been no statistically significant warming?" What's your confidence level in the accuracy of the GISS temperature record?


Lindzen's address at Fermilab:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm#



http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HS1.jpg

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ScreenShotLindzen1.jpg

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/lindzen2.jpg

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/lindzen3.jpg

 

[PoppingTom]

Congratulations! You have added one more in an endless series of extraordinarily stupid posts and ad homs. You are clearly quite desperate ( and boring ) because that's all you ever do. You just hurl insults and tripe and stage temper tantrums. Your credibility is destroyed— mainly because you don't have any actual science. Next time, bring some— eh?

Look in the mirror, man!

 

[LaRocha]

Trysail stop copy-pasting, no one reads it, no one visits your links. Policy has already changed throughout the world to combat anthropogenic global warming and you and your non-scientist brethren can lay on the tracks, can tie Al Gore to the tracks, but the end results aren't going to change. Science policy is influenced by scientists, not by worthless blog writers. And the institutions of science say, "Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring, policy needs to change to combat it."

 

[trysail]

The BBC interviews Professor Phil Jones.

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails. The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics.


Full interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Phil Jones: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other...

*****​

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

*****​

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

Phil Jones:This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

*****​

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

Phil Jones: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

*****​

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

Phil Jones: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

*****​

 

[Dragonlipz]

Trysail stop copy-pasting, no one reads it, no one visits your links. Policy has already changed throughout the world to combat anthropogenic global warming and you and your non-scientist brethren can lay on the tracks, can tie Al Gore to the tracks, but the end results aren't going to change. Science policy is influenced by scientists, not by worthless blog writers. And the institutions of science say, "Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring, policy needs to change to combat it."

LaRocha:
The dude has no game.....and it is most obvious that he has no scientific expertise other than some rabid blogdogs who are as bereft of objective reasoning as he is.....

 

[trysail]

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity_PNAS_commentary.pdf

Fossil soils constrain ancient climate sensitivity
Dana L. Royer 1

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459

Global temperatures have covaried with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over the last 450 million years of Earth’s history (1). Critically, ancient greenhouse periods provide some of the most pertinent information for anticipating how the Earth will respond to the current anthropogenic loading of greenhouse gases. Paleo-CO2 can be inferred either by proxy or by the modeling of the long-term carbon cycle.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/royer_fig1.png​

Fig. 1. Constraints on climate sensitivity for the globally warm Cretaceous and early Paleogene (125–40 Mya). (A) Tropical sea surface temperature (SST) records (15–29). Boxes represent studies with high sampling density. The red band corresponds to estimated tropical SST under an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 1,000 ppm and a climate sensitivity (ΔT2×) of 3°C per CO2 doubling. Temperatures above this band probably represent times when climate sensitivity exceeded 3°C (see text). (B) Atmospheric CO2 records (compilation from ref. 2). Dashed lines correspond to present-day CO2 (387 ppm; A.D. 2009) and 1,000 ppm CO2. Records from the boron proxy are excluded because they are likely unreliable (30); records from the goethite and nahcolite proxies are excluded because they are not yet widely applied.​

For much of the geologic past, estimates of CO2 are consistent across methods (1). One exception is the paleosol carbonate proxy, whose CO2 estimates are often more than twice as high as coeval estimates from other methods (1). This discrepancy has led some to question the validity of the other methods and has hindered attempts to understand the linkages between paleo-CO2 and other parts of the Earth system. In this issue of PNAS, Breecker and colleagues (2) break important new ground for resolving this conflict.

The paleosol carbonate proxy for atmospheric CO2 is based on the analysis of carbonate nodules that precipitate in soils in seasonally dry to dry climates. These nodules incorporate carbon from two sources: atmospheric CO2 that diffuses directly into the soil and in situ CO2 from biological respiration. Because the stable carbon isotopic composition of these two sources is distinct, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 can be inferred if the concentration of soil CO2 and the isotopic compositions of the two sources are known (3). Atmospheric CO2 estimates scale directly with soil CO2 concentration: If the soil term is wrong by a factor of two, the inferred atmospheric CO2 will be off by a factor of two.

Estimates of soil CO2 concentration for fossil soils have been based on measurements taken during the growing season in equivalent living soils. However, Breecker et al. (2, 4) demonstrate convincingly that the window of active carbonate formation is restricted to the warmer and dryer parts of the growing season. Carbonate formation is simply not thermodynamically favorable during cooler and wetter seasons. Critically, biological productivity and respiration are low during these dry periods. As a result, soil CO2 concentration during the critical window of active carbonate formation has been overestimated in most soils by a factor of two or more (2).

What does this mean? CO2 estimates from the paleosol carbonate proxy can be cut in half (or more). Doing so snaps the paleosol-based estimates in line with most other approaches (2) (Fig. 1B) and produces the most precise view to date of Earth’s CO2 history. We are now better equipped to answer some important, basic questions. For example, what is the quantitative relationship between CO2 and temperature? That is, for every doubling of CO2, what is the long-term (103–104 years) equilibrium response of global temperature (termed here climate sensitivity)?

Most assessments of climate sensitivity for the present day hover around 3°C per CO2 doubling (5), although if the longterm waxing and waning of continental ice sheets are considered it is probably closer to 6°C (6). Less is known about climate sensitivity during ancient greenhouse periods, simply because having poles draped in forest instead of ice represents a profound rearrangement of climate feedbacks.

Records of CO2 and temperature are now sufficiently robust for placing firm minimum constraints on climate sensitivity during parts of the Cretaceous and early Paleogene (125–40 Mya), a well-known globally warm interval. Indeed, owing to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature, the geologic record is ideally suited for establishing minimum thresholds. This is because, to accommodate a declining sensitivity, other boundary conditions of the Earth system need to shift exponentially, for example, unreasonable oscillations in atmospheric CO2. Policywise, establishing a basement value for climate sensitivity is a critical step for addressing our current climate crisis (5).

With few exceptions, CO2 during the Cretaceous and early Paleogene was<1,000 ppm (2) (Fig. 1B). Global mean surface temperature is very difficult to establish for these ancient periods. However, temperature change in the tropics today scales at roughly two-thirds the global change (5, 6).

If we assume a similar relationship in the past and a climate sensitivity of 3°C perCO2 doubling, a rise in atmospheric CO2 to 1,000 ppm results in a 3.6°C warming in the tropics (relative to a 280-ppm baseline).

Given that tropical sea surface temperatures range from 27° to 29°C today, tropical temperatures exceeding 30.6°–32.6°C (red band in Fig. 1A) during the Cretaceous and early Paleogene likely correspond to a climate sensitivity >3°C. This threshold was commonly surpassed during the Cretaceous and early Paleogene (Fig. 1A). For times when CO2 was <1,000 ppm, the tropical temperature threshold for a 3°C climate sensitivity would shift to correspondingly cooler values.

Further, there is abundant evidence for flatter latitudinal temperature gradients during greenhouse periods (7, 8), meaning, again, that the tropical temperature threshold used here is probably a maximum. Together, it is clear that during the Cretaceous and Paleogene climate sensitivity commonly exceeded 3°C per CO2 doubling.

Although further work is needed, the geologic evidence (2) (Fig. 1) is most consistent with long-term, future climate change being more severe than presently anticipated (5). Also, global climate models tuned to ancient greenhouse periods commonly have emergent climate sensitivities of <3°C and they fail to simulate the shallow latitudinal temperature gradients (9). Thus even for times with little ice, there are important positive feedbacks that are presently not captured adequately in climate models. Processes for warming the high latitudes without a change in CO2 include more vigorous heat transport (10, 11), more widespread stratospheric clouds in the high latitudes (12), and climate feedbacks from polar forests (13). and their study highlights the value of a clearly resolved paleo-CO2 record. However, a limitation is that they uniformly apply a “best guess” value of 2,500 ppm for soil CO2 concentration.

They recognize this as an oversimplification and is an area for future work. Better modeling of the term, perhaps through independent proxy (14), may result in a further tightening of the paleo-CO2 record.

1. Royer DL (2006) CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 70:5665– 5675.

2. Breecker DO, Sharp ZD, McFadden LD (2010) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for 2100 A.D. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:576–580.

3. Cerling TE (1991) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: Evidence from Cenozoic and Mesozoic paleosols. Am J Sci 291:377–400.

4. Breecker DO, Sharp ZD, McFadden LD (2009) Seasonal bias in the formation and stable isotopic composition of pedogenic carbonate in modern soils from central New Mexico, USA. Geol Soc Am Bull 121:630–640.

5. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).

6. Hansen J, et al. (2008) Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmospheric Sci J 2: 217–231.

7. Bice KL, Huber BT, Norris RD (2003) Extreme polar warmth during the Cretaceous greenhouse? Paradox of the late Turonian δ18O record at Deep Sea Drilling Project Site 511. Paleoceanography 18:1031.

8. Bijl PK, et al. (2009) Early Palaeogene temperature evolution of the southwest Pacific Ocean. Nature 461: 776–779.

9. Shellito CJ, Sloan LC, Huber M (2003) Climate model sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels in the Early-Middle Paleogene. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 193: 113–123.

10. Korty RL, Emanuel KA, Scott JR (2008) Tropical cycloneinduced upper-ocean mixing and climate: Application to equable climates. J Clim 21:638–654.

11. Ufnar DF, González LA, Ludvigson GA, Brenner RL, Witzke BJ (2004) Evidence for increased latent heat transport during the Cretaceous (Albian) greenhouse warming. Geology 32:1049–1052.

12. Abbot DS, Tziperman E (2008) Sea ice, high-latitude convection, and equable climates. Geophys Res Lett 35:L03702.

13. Beerling DJ, Nicholas Hewitt C, Pyle JA, Raven JA (2007) Critical issues in trace gas biogeochemistry and global change. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 365:1629–1642.

14. Retallack GJ (2009) Refining a pedogenic-carbonate CO2 paleobarometer to quantify a middle Miocene greenhouse spike. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 281:57–65.

15. Bice KL, et al. (2006) A multiple proxy and model study of Cretaceous upper ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Paleoceanography 21: PA2002.

16. Bornemann A, et al. (2008) Isotopic evidence for glaciation during the Cretaceous supergreenhouse. Science 319:189–192.

17. Forster A, Schouten S, Baas M, Sinninghe Damsté JS (2007) Mid-Cretaceous (Albian Santonian) sea surface temperature record of the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Geology 35:919–922.

18. Forster A, Schouten S, Moriya K, Wilson PA, Sinninghe Damsté JS (2007) Tropical warming and intermittent cooling during the Cenomanian/Turonian oceanic anoxic event 2: Sea surface temperature records from the equatorial Atlantic. Paleoceanography 22A1219.

19. Moriya K, Wilson PA, Friedrich O, Erbacher J, Kawahata H (2007) Testing for ice sheets during the mid-Cretaceous greenhouse using glassy foraminiferal calcite from the mid-Cenomanian tropics on Demerara Rise. Geology 35:615–618.

20. Norris RD, Bice KL, Magno EA, Wilson PA (2002) Jiggling the tropical thermostat in the Cretaceous hothouse. Geology 30:299–302.

21. Pearson PN, et al. (2001) Warm tropical sea surface temperatures in the Late Cretaceous and Eocene epochs. Nature 413:481–487.

22. Pearson PN, et al. (2007) Stable warm tropical climate through the Eocene Epoch. Geology 35:211–214.

23. Schouten S, et al. (2003) Extremely high sea-surface temperatures at low latitudes during the middle Cretaceous as revealed by archaeal membrane lipids. Geology 31:1069–1072.

24. Tripati A, et al. (2003) Tropical sea-surface temperature reconstruction for the early Paleogene using Mg/Ca ratios of planktonic foraminifera. Paleoceanography 18:1101.

25. Wagner T, et al. (2008) Rapid warming and salinity changes of Cretaceous surface waters in the subtropical North Atlantic. Geology 36:203–206.

26. Wilson PA, Norris RD (2001) Warm tropical ocean surface and global anoxia during the mid-Cretaceous period. Nature 412:425–429.

27. Wilson PA, Norris RD, Cooper MJ (2002) Testing the Cretaceous greenhouse hypothesis using glassy foraminiferal calcite from the core of the Turonian tropics on Demerara Rise. Geology 30:607–610.

28. Wilson PA, Opdyke BN (1996) Equatorial sea-surface temperatures for the Maastrichtian revealed through remarkable preservation of metastable carbonate. Geology 24:555–558.

29. Sexton PF, Wilson PA, Pearson PN (2006) Microstructural and geochemical perspectives on planktic foraminiferal preservation: “glassy” versus “frosty”. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 7:Q12P19.

30. Pagani M, Lemarchand D, Spivack A, Gaillardet J (2005) A critical evaluation of the boron isotope-pH proxy: The accuracy of ancient ocean pH estimates. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 69:953–961.

 

[PoppingTom]

It's obvious that Mr.Trysail not really knows what he's posting.

 

[trysail]

Why The World Grew Cooler

"Although at first sight it might seem incredible, the Azolla Event alone was probably enough to account for the rapid cooling that brought the Eocene to an end. There is enough carbon locked in the pickled tissue of Azolla at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean to have reduced the CO2 content of the world atmosphere— enough to put a stop to the 'greenhouse world' that had prevailed through the millions of years of the Eocene.

The second leading idea has to do with the chemistry of the air and rocks, and the movement of the landmass of India, which finally made contact with the south coast of Eurasia about 40 million years ago and carried on moving.

But there is one further important complication that was explained in the early twentieth century by the Yugoslav ( now Croatian ) mathematician Milutin Milanković, a bold thinker and one of the few to offer unwavering support to the equally bold Alfred Wegener. It had long been known ( indeed, ever since Johannes Kepler in the early seventeenth century ) that the Earth's orbit around the sun is not circular but elliptical. It was also known that the shape of the orbit changes over periods of about ninety-six thousand years: sometimes the orbit is almost circular, and sometimes it is more elongated. In addition, the Earth is tilted relative to the sun, and the angle of tilt varies periodically. Finally, as the Earth spins, it wobbles, like a spinning top, which is known as precession. These three kinds of change affect the climate, said Milanković, because they affect the Earth's distance from the sun and the angle at which the sun's rays strike the Earth. Add the three effects together, he said, and you are likely to find the Earth will get warmer and then colder at intervals of roughly one hundred thousand years. This effect is superimposed on the general temperature of the Earth, which, as we have seen, is determined largely by the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; by the layout of the continents and hence the flow of ocean currents; and by the amount of ice and hence albedo.

In periods that are generally warm— like the Eocene— the Milanković cycles of relative warmth and relative coolness don't affect things very much. But by the time of the Pleistocene, starting about 2 million years ago, the Earth had been cooling steadily for many millions of years for the reasons we have seen and largely through the rise of the Tibetan plateau. It was so cold during the Pleistocene that the cool phase of the Milanković cycles would have been enough to trigger an Ice Age. Indeed, as the prediction has it, Ice Ages should occur at roughly one hundred thousand year intervals. That means that since the start of the Pleistocene, the world should have experienced about twenty Ice Ages. The geological record says that this is precisely what has happened. The latest Ice Age ended about ten thousand years ago. At present, the world is between Ice Ages, and we will have to wait and see how things will pan out over the next millions of years, as the continents continue to shuffle around and the ocean currents come and go. These things are so complicated that in detail, over time, they are impossible to predict.

But to return to our main theme. Add the rise of Tibet to the death of the Arctic ferns and we have all the mechanisms we need in order to explain why the tropical days of the Eocene came to an end, and why the world has been cooling ever since."


-Colin Tudge
The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor
New York, New York 2009.


The emergence of a complete fossilized skeleton, originally found in Germany's Messel Pit, that had spent the last thirty-five years in the hands of a private collector into the hands of scientists led to this fascinating account and theory of evolution. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius

 

[PoppingTom]

What was the question / the topic ?

Trysail, you succeed in confusing everything.