Here's an interesting look at the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110605132433.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110605132433.htm
-
This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).
If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
- the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
- the thread will be closed to further posts.
- the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
Thank you for understanding.
Old Mud shows Carbon release clues
- Thread starter Maxx
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
So if I understand this right, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55.9 million years ago, pumped as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over 20,000 years as we, at current rates, would in 2,000 years, and got a runaway greenhouse effect.
And the team of geologists cited are worried that "this current rapid change may not allow sufficient time for the biological environment to adjust."
How much (rather than at what rate) excess CO[SUB]2[/SUB] have we put into the atmosphere so far? How close are we actually to a runaway greenhouse effect?
This is on a geologic scale, I'll grant you, but it almost seems to me you could post this on Politics & Current Events.
And the team of geologists cited are worried that "this current rapid change may not allow sufficient time for the biological environment to adjust."
How much (rather than at what rate) excess CO[SUB]2[/SUB] have we put into the atmosphere so far? How close are we actually to a runaway greenhouse effect?
This is on a geologic scale, I'll grant you, but it almost seems to me you could post this on Politics & Current Events.
I'm more interested in the scientific side of atmospheric CO2 than I am in the fixed responses people have come up with. I know exactly what the response in P&CE would be so what's the point?
On the other hand, as a Sci Fi event, the current outpouring of CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty astounding: a whole civilization effectively convinces itself either nothing is happening or nothing can be done while a perfectly obvious Sci Fi event fantastically alters their whole planet in fifty years. Meanwhile, people wonder about how people would respond to such things. Well, here's one answer: not much at all.
So as a Sci Fi event pouring CO2 into the atmosphere is pretty interesting. As a real event, it is hideously dull.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
Mmm, yyyeahh, the P&CE responses would be pretty predictable, at that. It's kind of telling, or disgraceful, or something, that the science is so clear and the response is ... um.
The way they're determining what happened is pretty cool, with the cores from shallow seas.
Very surprising. And who knew the mud was that thick off Spitzbergen?
The whole PETM thing is strange enough without a even more strange version of it happening right here, right now.
I mean, if you had heard about the PETM in 1975 (assuming geology and paleontology had been advanced enough then somehow), you would have thought, "OMG (though in 1975 you might not have sid OMG), that sounds completely catastrophic!" And now here you are in the middle of something 10 times more catastrophic and it just looks like science doing its work and being ignored even more than usual. A surrealistically bland non-event. Not what you'd expect from cores from an horrific event 1/10 as horrific. I guess non-events are even harder to comprehend than events.
Even more disturbing are the several feedback loops. To mention two:
1. Increased warming melts Arctic permafrost. This is happening at an alarming rate, and is not a matter of scientific dispute. Permafrost contains massive quantities of trapped CO2 and CH4 (methane), and frozen vegetative matter which release those gases.
2. The two most efficient natural absorbers of CO2 on the earth are oceanic carbonate-fixing environments, like coral reef systems, and rich terrestrial vegetative environments, like tropical rain forests. Coral reef systems are extremely dependent on limited stable temperature regimes, and are being reduced today by increased oceanic water temperatures. Tropical rain forests are being reduced by logging and burning at rapid rates, everywhere. Neither of these factual matters is in dispute, either.
1. Increased warming melts Arctic permafrost. This is happening at an alarming rate, and is not a matter of scientific dispute. Permafrost contains massive quantities of trapped CO2 and CH4 (methane), and frozen vegetative matter which release those gases.
2. The two most efficient natural absorbers of CO2 on the earth are oceanic carbonate-fixing environments, like coral reef systems, and rich terrestrial vegetative environments, like tropical rain forests. Coral reef systems are extremely dependent on limited stable temperature regimes, and are being reduced today by increased oceanic water temperatures. Tropical rain forests are being reduced by logging and burning at rapid rates, everywhere. Neither of these factual matters is in dispute, either.
Well, no kidding. Oddly enough, though, the very notion of "feed-back" is often used to confuse the issues. For example, in geological samples, CO2 levels often rise after there are other signs of warming. So the sequence goes:
1) Warming
2) increased CO2
3) feedback from increased CO2 causes more warming
4) which in turn causes more CO2 and you get
5) Warming
6) which leads to increased CO2
Somehow, it seems plausible to argue that since CO2 is part of a feedback mechanism, there's know way to know whether inceasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels is causing the warming. I find this very odd since increasing CO2 does cause warming no matter how you look at it. So is that a question about the first micro-second of energy entering the altered atmosphere? Or is it like saying: increasing A causes more B which in turn causes more A which in turn causes more B etc. therefore if I increase B first, B doesn't cause the loop? Or is it like saying, Process A remembers where every molecule of process B comes from and can tell if A caused it or if it was simply introduced?
Anyway, I remain puzzled by the idea that if warming causes CO2 increase that that additional CO2 is somehow different from CO2 introduced by burning fossil fuels.
Here's an interesting read:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
Okay, I tried but failed to follow that link, but ...
I would not consider an editorial in a financial magazine to be a reliable source for scientific information.
The article is concocted from a mass of total misinformation and offers no citations since the misinformation is simply circulated from one op ed to another. As for misinformation, for example, there's no guessing involved and empirical evidence of all kinds confirms:
1) CO2 causes warming
2) CO2 has gone up steadily since 1850
3) warming has gone up steadily since 1850
The writer is also very confused about what a "cause" is. It's true that CO2 is not the major greenhouse effect, but it is an effect that is significant and increasing and feeding back into the greenhouse cycle.
Here's another point the article makes:
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
There seem to be a number of potential misrepresentations here. One is that systems that are in a state of relative equilibrium will stay in that equilibrium when parameters are varied. So yes, climates are in some sense stable ie within some range of parameters, but in another sense of the term "climate", we know that climates can change radically and very quickly. So saying that the climate is a system with a balance of parameters is true, but the conclusion, ie that these can be varied (for example by relentlessly pouring in more and more CO2) without changing the system is in fact only one possible answer and one that doesn't hold up in the face of evidence of rapid climate change in the past and observable change in the present.
So, contrary to the article, climates (including the present climate) are unstable and this can be observed in the past and in the present.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
Maybe this is more of a language and culture thing. Those op ed financial articles that poo-poo science are a interesting genre in themselves. and of course they have gone from saying "Nothing is happening" to saying
"Well everybody knows something is happening, but it is of no significance."
of course "everybody knows" means "despite all of my denials (or the denials by my ilk) a few years ago it is now clear that something is going on" and the "but" is there as a kind of double concession, meaning both "the discoverers of the thing don't know what the thing is (though-but you'd think they would but no)" and "my judgement as somebody who didn't think the thing existed at all are but however au contraire still superior somehow though you would have reason to doubt that but you don't cuz this article has been recycled out of a chain of nearly identical articles by people whose judgment cumulatively is somehow convincing though really not, but you will find it convincing anyway."
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
One would have to wait a long time for people who were dead wrong and have been proven to have been dead wrong to ever say they were wrong.
Barbara Tuchman defined folly as doing something dumb at a time when it was obvious it was dumb and other people were pointing out that it was dumb. She wrote a whole book about it, and from Troy to VietNam, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to say, "I was dumb."
It is illuminating, but also depressing, to see how the verbal gymnastics have mutated and the excuses have changed. The only constant thing is the utter unwillingness to do something substantive about CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions. It's maddening to have to refute argument after repetitive argument, since they change like mayflies anyway -- the argument means nothing to these people except as an excuse for inaction.
um. </rant>
Barbara Tuchman defined folly as doing something dumb at a time when it was obvious it was dumb and other people were pointing out that it was dumb. She wrote a whole book about it, and from Troy to VietNam, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to say, "I was dumb."
It is illuminating, but also depressing, to see how the verbal gymnastics have mutated and the excuses have changed. The only constant thing is the utter unwillingness to do something substantive about CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions. It's maddening to have to refute argument after repetitive argument, since they change like mayflies anyway -- the argument means nothing to these people except as an excuse for inaction.
um. </rant>
Well, there are ways out. Whereas all poo-poo-ing used to take the form of "climates change, get over it, nothing is happening"
Now they take the form of, "Everybody knows CO2 does something, but not enough to actually change the climate because climates are always/never/not changing or changing and well, everybody knows that, it just is not important or we can't do anything."
The only thing that is consistant is the poo-poo-ing tone: "Oh those poor delusive scientists, always thinking something might be happening. We know better. We have seen it all before, whatever it is and it wasn't anything."
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 508
- Reaction score
- 63
- Location
- North Texas
- Website
- www.androidastronomer.com
What is this? Skeptical analysis? Evidence-based thinking? Going where the data leads?
*sniff*
I love you guys!
*sniff*
I love you guys!
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 38
- Location
- Saskatchewan, Canada (ex-UK)
- Website
- worldsunimagined.blogspot.com
Indeed. I'm continually amused by the attempts of the doomsayers to push ever more extreme 'we're all going to die!' claims when the rest of the world has got bored of 'climate change' and realised what nonsense it is.
This is the new line? Massive scientific evidence is not plausible because it is terrifying yet boring?
Or to look at it another way: is anything consistantly horrific invariably something of no interest?
Where's the skepticism? Sorry, but a main part of scientific research is skepticism, and all I'm seeing here are statements saying here's definitive proof and anybody who doesn't agree has their head in the sand.
I read the article. It's fraught with terms such as "We think ...", "It is thought to be...", and other hedges that basically indicates that they have some data and they are interpreting it the way they want. (read using the data to fit their preconceived model) That's a hypothesis, not proof or a fact.
Also, this is a very narrow study. There's so many other possible correlations, effects, and results that this study cannot possibly reveal, that no general conclusions should be made from it. Some specific and interesting results are there, I'm sure, but hardly proof of something profound. Hype is not the friend of the scientist except for getting more funding.
I read the article. It's fraught with terms such as "We think ...", "It is thought to be...", and other hedges that basically indicates that they have some data and they are interpreting it the way they want. (read using the data to fit their preconceived model) That's a hypothesis, not proof or a fact.
Also, this is a very narrow study. There's so many other possible correlations, effects, and results that this study cannot possibly reveal, that no general conclusions should be made from it. Some specific and interesting results are there, I'm sure, but hardly proof of something profound. Hype is not the friend of the scientist except for getting more funding.
The Earth has long had a carbon-cycle process, and the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied over geologic time. About two things, there seems to me no factual question:
1. CO2 does act in the atmosphere as a major greenhouse gas.
2. Regardless of what "natural" processes may be doing, it cannot possibly help that humans are artificially introducing CO2 into the atmosphere.
1. CO2 does act in the atmosphere as a major greenhouse gas.
2. Regardless of what "natural" processes may be doing, it cannot possibly help that humans are artificially introducing CO2 into the atmosphere.
ColoradoMom
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 356
- Reaction score
- 22
- Location
- Rural Colorado
- Website
- www.the-simple-homeschool.com
You should probably define "major greenhouse gas".
What does major mean? Is it concentration? And by what standard is this measured?
I don't doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning that in the proper concentrations in the atmosphere it acts as a medium for absorbing and emitting radiation. But, being a scientifically minded person, I'd like to see the standard model by which they are making these predictions - beyond Al Gore's silly animations.
This absurd notion that carbon is bad just mystifies me. Our entire existence is based on carbon so it should not come as any surprise that carbon is all around us.
I'm all for non-intrusive and practical ways of lowering carbon dioxide IF NECESSARY, but what I take offense to is replacing science education in our schools with environmental activism just to raise up little minions who think signing up for carbon trading is actually going to DO something.
I mean, please. How ridiculous is that?
People really fall for that crap? Trading carbon...just makes me laugh.
While I can't say it for certain, after all it might happen in a billion years, Earth is NOT going to turn into Venus. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is .0039% compared to Venus at almost 97% and Mars at about 95%. It is so small of a percentage that it's considered negligible.
Now, if people are really worried about it let's do some practical things like plant more trees, grow some algae, and etc. But telling me to switch my incredibly efficient coal burning power supply to an incredibly INefficient solar or wind power supply is stupid. Just stupid.
And the while light bulb thing...seriously, if you don't realize that GE is just trying to trick you into paying more money for a light bulb, well then...what can I say.
I'm all for protecting REAL problems in the environment; in fact my job title happens to be Environmental Protection Specialist. But, let's not make stuff up so big corporations can trade carbon credits (which I hope you all realize are IMAGINARY) to make money off of affluent guilt.
And if I hear one more person say that America is dirty (beyond LA, let's all face it LA is a lost cause) I'll scream. Think back 40 years and tell me how dirty the country is now.
The environmental movement did a good thing in the 70's - it was a crap hole. Take it from someone who was born in Cleveland when the river was on fire.
But we are looking pretty damn good now. And let me just tell you from an environmental regulator's point of view what that means...it means you ease up, not buckle down.
The EPA has made serious overstepping mistakes and lost BIG BIG battles in court in just the past few months over it. The tide will turn completely against them if they fail to see the light.
Although this thread has wandered from its origins to a discussion about the validity of global warming/climate change, I think you all might find this article (or anything else by or about Richard A. Muller) to be useful.
I wanted to post this interview in the June 2011 Scientific American, but I don't have digital rights. If any of you have or can get hold of an issue, read it.
_________________________
And then, let's keep the thread on topic. Or, if Maxx doesn't mind, we could retitle this thread to reflect the direction of the discussion.
_________________________
I wanted to post this interview in the June 2011 Scientific American, but I don't have digital rights. If any of you have or can get hold of an issue, read it.
_________________________
And then, let's keep the thread on topic. Or, if Maxx doesn't mind, we could retitle this thread to reflect the direction of the discussion.
_________________________
The scientific evidence has been flowing in steadily and consistantly for over 30 years. There are really no substantial findings where more "skepticism" has anything to add. Even now, the first thing most "skeptics" say is something like "of course CO2 has an impact, everybody knows that" -- the very mode of dismissal itself has changed. In a few more years skeptics will be saying "of course we are in the midst of a major climate change triggered by a huge temperature excursion and of course CO2 is the crucial element, everybody knows that."
In view of that, it seems to me that when new types of data collection reveal the actual comparative parameters for looking at how what is going on now in relation to the most extreme temperature excursion since the Mesozoic, the PETM, it is worth considering what it means that quite possibly the current CO2 movement into the atmosphere is at 10 times the rate of the most extreme previous Cenazoic temperature event. And of course in the present world, the rate of CO2 movement into the atmosphere is increasing all the time. That's the rate. There's not just a lot there already, but the speed at which more is entering the large amount is going up all the time. It is quite possible that the current rate is 10 times the most extreme previous excursion, and still that rate is continuing to go up.
It means that as CO2 goes up, the amount of energy that does not leave the atmosphere goes up. In a particular climate, all the gases and energy sources feedback on each other and maintain an general equilibrium. If you take one of these and increase it at a rate say 10 times what happened during the most extreme temperature event in the Cenozoic, you get a planet that warms up very fast in geological terms, and presumably the climate has to go through all kinds of controtions to get back to an equilibrium with a much higher range of temperatures.