CO2 At Highest Level in 15 Million Years - Update

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
Environment • Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm PDT • Views: 279

Science Daily has more details on the alarming Caltech study we noted earlier this week, led by Aradhna Tripati: Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report.

“The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” said the paper’s lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

“Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth’s history,” she said.

By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth’s atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.

Tripati, before joining UCLA’s faculty, was part of a research team at England’s University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.

“We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice,” Tripati said. “This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.

“We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago,” she said. “We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.

“A slightly shocking finding,” Tripati said, “is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.”

Advertisement

92 comments

  • Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 albusteve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:55:19pm

snorkles!
git yer snorkles here!

2 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:55:44pm

No hat tip? I linked to this article in the original thread.

3 albusteve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:56:38pm

re: #2 goddamnedfrank

No hat tip? I linked to this article in the original thread.

gimme a break...really

4 Big Steve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:56:56pm

I could of told you this...I have the acorns in my back yard to prove it (riffing on previous thread!)

5 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:58:07pm

re: #2 goddamnedfrank

Whining for hat tips is considered to be in poor form at LGF.

6 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:58:14pm

I recently learned that redwood forests (and lumber) sequester a lot of carbon, because it goes into the wood, which does not rot like most other wood.

Plant more redwoods.

7 Charles Johnson  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:58:52pm

re: #2 goddamnedfrank

No hat tip? I linked to this article in the original thread.

Uh .. thanks for linking to it, but believe it or not I can't possibly read every comment posted at LGF. Someone at Caltech actually emailed about this article earlier today.

8 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:00:54pm
“A slightly shocking finding,” Tripati said, “is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.”

So I wonder what caused that build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere 20 million years ago?

9 rwmofo  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:02:14pm

re: #8 Mich-again

So I wonder what caused that build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere 20 million years ago?

Fred Flintstone loved da beans.

11 Big Steve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:03:04pm

re: #8 Mich-again

So I wonder what caused that build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere 20 million years ago?

Some have speculated that it was the rise of the Himalayas which exposed huge carbonate deposits.

12 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:04:17pm

re: #10 Ojoe

Yikes, I never saw that view at night, what a contrast to the serene mountains we normally see.

13 albusteve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:04:35pm

re: #11 Big Steve

Some have speculated that it was the rise of the Himalayas which exposed huge carbonate deposits.

damned mountains are nothing but trouble...I say get rid of them

14 jaunte  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:04:55pm

re: #8 Mich-again

So I wonder what caused that build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere 20 million years ago?

It was those RINOs again:

Eocene:
"Post-Grande Coupure faunas include the true rhinoceros (family Rhinocerotidae), three artiodactyl families (Entelodontidae, Anthracotheriidae and Gelocidae) related respectively to pigs, hippos and ruminants, the rodent families Eomyidae, Cricetidae (hamsters) and Castoridae (beavers), and the lipotyphlan family Erinaceidae (hedgehogs). The speciose genus Palaeotherium plus Anoplotherium and the families Xiphodontidae and Amphimerycidae were observed to disappear completely.[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
15 albusteve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:06:06pm

re: #12 Bagua

Yikes, I never saw that view at night, what a contrast to the serene mountains we normally see.

LA from the Hollywood hills is a truly awesome sight...drive out there right now and tell me I'm wrong

16 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:06:06pm

re: #12 Bagua

I grew up down in all the twinkly lights. It was hard to find a really dark place at night & you couldn't see very many stars. I really appreciated the Scout trips on a weekend once a month! we'd get far out of L.A.

17 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:07:03pm

Indoctrination watch

"Mmmm, you can taste the socialism!"
/Nom, nom nom

18 albusteve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:07:39pm

re: #16 Ojoe

I grew up down in all the twinkly lights. It was hard to find a really dark place at night & you couldn't see very many stars. I really appreciated the Scout trips on a weekend once a month! we'd get far out of L.A.

precisely why Californians have flooded into NM for the last decade or so

19 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:07:54pm

Just BTW a sample of all the links that can be found showing for certain that this is indeed happening...

All links are from actual scientists. Please accept no substitutes.

For lay people who have an interest in science these are general pages at a basic level:

[Link: climate.nasa.gov...]
[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

A complete course on climate science from UCSD at freshman level:
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

A complete history of the field, cross referenced and hyperlinked with all references cited in a complete list of the actual papers from The

American Institute of Physics: (This is the most in depth set of links that is still not completely technical.)

[Link: www.aip.org...]

20 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:08:41pm

re: #15 albusteve

Yes, the few times I have seen those have been impressive. Yet those were decades ago and I know there has been a population and building explosion since.

21 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:09:04pm

re: #7 Charles

You are getting noticed in the community...

Not that I would mention your efforts...

22 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:10:05pm

I heard there is a carbon sequestering technique involving putting some amounts of iron into the surface of the open ocean, promoting huge plankton blooms which gobble up carbon, but I don't remember much more about that.

Except it seemed cheap and doable.

23 albusteve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:11:49pm

re: #22 Ojoe

I heard there is a carbon sequestering technique involving putting some amounts of iron into the surface of the open ocean, promoting huge plankton blooms which gobble up carbon, but I don't remember much more about that.

Except it seemed cheap and doable.

harvest the plankton...steaks, tacos, crab salads...win/win

24 Big Steve  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:12:27pm

When one samples million year old air bubbles in ice can you simply take the CO2 level found or is there a correlation that has to be applied. In other words is there any loss of CO2 in the air bubble in ice over time?

25 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:14:47pm

re: #11 Big Steve

Silicate weathering eats CO2 from the atmosphere.

26 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:16:34pm

re: #19 LudwigVanQuixote

Perfect! Thank You!
[Link: icanhascheezburger.com...]

27 sattv4u2  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:16:37pm

re: #24 Big Steve

When one samples million year old air bubbles in ice can you simply take the CO2 level found or is there a correlation that has to be applied. In other words is there any loss of CO2 in the air bubble in ice over time?

Isn;t Walt Disneys and Ted Williiams' head on ice? I wonder what they've lost over time?
//

28 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:17:24pm

re: #16 Ojoe

I grew up down in all the twinkly lights. It was hard to find a really dark place at night & you couldn't see very many stars. I really appreciated the Scout trips on a weekend once a month! we'd get far out of L.A.

Is there a way to choose the different views of the tower-cam?

29 shiplord kirel  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:19:33pm

re: #24 Big Steve

When one samples million year old air bubbles in ice can you simply take the CO2 level found or is there a correlation that has to be applied. In other words is there any loss of CO2 in the air bubble in ice over time?

There are some standard adjustments that have to applied. These were calibrated by comparing ice core samples to other paleo-geological materials, such as fossil wood, to get a general profile of the climate during any particular era, and by comparison with modern samples from varying periods of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

30 Liberal Classic  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:20:59pm

The Miocene was fairly recent, geologically speaking. The earth would have superficially resembled the world of today. Mammals, birds, and flowering plants were both well established, and even the continents were largely similar to today.

One of the best graphs of global temperatures I've found on the net comes from a professor of earth science at Rice University named Bill Leeman. His home page contains a lot of information about geology and climate science.

The following image from his site puts global temperatures in context of geologic time. The vertical axis is time, going down. It is roughly logarithmic. The horizontal axis shows mean global temperatures, and how they have fluctuated in the past.

Image: GeoColumn.gif

31 HoosierHoops  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:21:30pm

re: #21 LudwigVanQuixote

You are getting noticed in the community...

Not that I would mention your efforts...

I think the loss of vast amounts of rainforest has upset our ecological balance..
I have no proof...But I think if we had a sh*t load more forests processing Co2 we would be better off...What do you think Lud?

32 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:25:43pm

re: #24 Big Steve

When one samples million year old air bubbles in ice can you simply take the CO2 level found or is there a correlation that has to be applied. In other words is there any loss of CO2 in the air bubble in ice over time?

Well in general, not so much. Water ice is pretty impermeable to CO2.

From the pages I linked above here is a useful discussion on ice cores and their measurements.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

33 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:25:58pm

re: #2 goddamnedfrank

No hat tip? I linked to this article in the original thread.

There's an upding for you, then.

34 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:27:10pm

re: #19 LudwigVanQuixote

Thank you, Ludwig. That post is our Troll Hammer for the night.

36 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:29:23pm

re: #6 Ojoe

I recently learned that redwood forests (and lumber) sequester a lot of carbon, because it goes into the wood, which does not rot like most other wood.

Plant more redwoods.

Well, we're kinda in the soup on that front, too.

37 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:30:01pm

re: #31 HoosierHoops

Redwoods are very good at sequestering CO2 because the carbon goes into the wood, and the wood does not rot, so the carbon stays there. Cypress wood likewise, as it is rot resistant too.

38 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:30:24pm

re: #31 HoosierHoops

I think the loss of vast amounts of rainforest has upset our ecological balance..
I have no proof...But I think if we had a sh*t load more forests processing Co2 we would be better off...What do you think Lud?

Yes obviously...

We would also be much better off if we had not killed off huge percentages of photosynthesizers in the oceans by pollution.

Also from those pages:

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

39 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:30:56pm
40 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:31:05pm

re: #34 Dark_Falcon

Thank you, Ludwig. That post is our Troll Hammer for the night.

Always glad to serve.

41 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:31:49pm

re: #26 Rightwingconspirator

You are very welcome!

42 BryanS  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:33:17pm

This sonds like pretty convincing evidence for the validity of their data. I was wondering from LGF's first post on this development how the data was presumed to be accurate.

As far as the AGW debate goes, I think the debate is pretty much settled that human activity is the reason for increases in CO2 recently. The correlation between CO2 levels and warm temperatures seems pretty clear as well. My question--and I think this is really the only component of AGW that is still in doubt-- to what extent does CO2 cause warming, and how does that compare to other factors? I don't know enough about that area, so I'd be interested in anyone tossing info out.

44 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:35:08pm

Hot Airheads...


Impeach and prosecute him now!

trs on October 21, 2009 at 9:50 PM


...


What has he done for anyone lately?

He’s remained black.

ddrintn on October 21, 2009 at 9:50 PM


...

The desire not to be thought of as an un-American racist.

ddrintn on October 21, 2009 at 9:59 PM


...


I would love to see a breakdown of how many of those people who lost jobs voted for Ogabe.

Bishop on October 21, 2009 at 10:05 PM


...


Most unprofessional, thin-skinned, manipulative White House EVAH!
You have failed epically, obooba. You are an embarrassment to the country!

HornetSting on October 21, 2009 at 10:08 PM


...


errr…that extra-terrestrial he’s married to has been very quiet lately…that’s a GOOD thing, no?….*slopes off*

Fortunata on October 21, 2009 at 10:08 PM


...


If I hate his white half MORE than his black half, am I still racist, rednecked and radically evil?

Ris4victory on October 21, 2009 at 10:08 PM


...


I’m starting to gloat, people. Izzat OK?
Obozo Presidency – “die quickly!”

Lanceman on October 21, 2009 at 10:16 PM


...
...etc

45 BryanS  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:35:32pm

re: #37 Ojoe

Redwoods are very good at sequestering CO2 because the carbon goes into the wood, and the wood does not rot, so the carbon stays there. Cypress wood likewise, as it is rot resistant too.

So what we need then is to waste a lot more paper and then stop the friggen recycling so it can be buried (sequestered). So long as we are using managed forestry techniques to regrow trees over the same land for continual harvest, such waste may be good for the environment :)

46 yankee  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:36:32pm

Doesn't this article give some support to the global warming deniers? If CO2 is the primary driver of temperature and CO2 is now the same as it was when our planet was 5-10 degrees warmer, how do we explain the discrepancy in temperature.

47 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:36:52pm

re: #44 Killgore Trout

Sheesh. Ugly, angry, and stupid: Those posts hit the Bad Craziness Trifecta.

48 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:38:09pm

re: #47 Dark_Falcon

Sheesh. Ugly, angry, and stupid: Those posts hit the Bad Craziness Trifecta.

They've been on pretty good behavior the past few days but they're starting to slip.

49 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:38:31pm

re: #33 The Sanity Inspector

There's an upding for you, then.

Woo hoo! Thanks. Clearly it was not the most adept comment ever. I'll just have to live with the karmic damage.

At the risk of generating even more I'll just assume that the lies AJStrata posted in his own thread were by and large left alone because he is one of the few conservative bloggers left willing to do the minimally decent thing and side with reason against racists?

LGF sociology is certainly interesting.

50 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:39:23pm

re: #42 BryanS

This sonds like pretty convincing evidence for the validity of their data. I was wondering from LGF's first post on this development how the data was presumed to be accurate.

As far as the AGW debate goes, I think the debate is pretty much settled that human activity is the reason for increases in CO2 recently. The correlation between CO2 levels and warm temperatures seems pretty clear as well. My question--and I think this is really the only component of AGW that is still in doubt-- to what extent does CO2 cause warming, and how does that compare to other factors? I don't know enough about that area, so I'd be interested in anyone tossing info out.

It's a great question. The short answer is that we are the dominant driver of the current climate cycle.

Now CO2 is not the only thing going on... rather it is a mechanism that is driving ultimately many others.

There are many linked feedbacks. If you look at the links I have supplied abouve, you will find a pretty good discussion of what is going on.

51 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:41:01pm

re: #49 goddamnedfrank

Woo hoo! Thanks. Clearly it was not the most adept comment ever. I'll just have to live with the karmic damage.

At the risk of generating even more I'll just assume that the lies AJStrata posted in his own thread were by and large left alone because he is one of the few conservative bloggers left willing to do the minimally decent thing and side with reason against racists?

LGF sociology is certainly interesting.

Uhhh no, if you noticed, I spent several hours debunking each of his talking points in excruciating detail with dozens of links to actual science papers.

52 ryannon  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:42:28pm

As if I'm going to believe anyone with a name like Aradhna Tripati!

Clearly a commie plot to take away our Hummers and replace them with bicycles.

Aradhna Tripati: Ha! Not me, my friend. No siree.

I'm just not buying it.

53 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:43:16pm

re: #32 LudwigVanQuixote

Water ice is pretty impermeable to CO2.

What if you spray water onto dry ice? Would that make an impermeable layer to hold the CO2 in? It sublimates when its exposed to the air.

54 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:43:55pm

re: #51 LudwigVanQuixote

Uhhh no, if you noticed, I spent several hours debunking each of his talking points in excruciating detail with dozens of links to actual science papers.

Yes, you were virtually alone were roundly attacked for your tone. My point exactly.

55 BryanS  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:45:01pm

re: #50 LudwigVanQuixote

Will take a look.

56 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:45:40pm

re: #24 Big Steve

When one samples million year old air bubbles in ice can you simply take the CO2 level found or is there a correlation that has to be applied. In other words is there any loss of CO2 in the air bubble in ice over time?

Air bubbles in ice ought to be stable. It's too cold for any likely chemistry that would break down CO2 or N2, and the ratio of CO2 to N2 in the bubble would thus stay where it started. Both molecules aren't going anywhere.

57 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:45:49pm

How do they study the ancient atmosphere trapped in the ice? And how do they know certain elements & compounds are not precipitating in or out of the surrounding ice? Not trying to be sly, but genuinely curious, even though the long answer is probably over my head.

58 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:47:04pm

re: #52 ryannon

As if I'm going to believe anyone with a name like Aradhna Tripati!

Clearly a commie plot to take away our Hummers and replace them with bicycles.

Aradhna Tripati: Ha! Not me, my friend. No siree.

I'm just not buying it.

But, from the photo, she is teh Hawtness. So, let her do with my belongings what she will!

59 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:49:18pm

re: #46 yankee

The CO2 increase may be partly compensating for a slightly cooler sun.

60 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:51:02pm

re: #46 yankee

Doesn't this article give some support to the global warming deniers? If CO2 is the primary driver of temperature and CO2 is now the same as it was when our planet was 5-10 degrees warmer, how do we explain the discrepancy in temperature.

Lag time. It takes time to melt polar icecaps, and while they're melting, heat is being soaked up without much temperature change. Also, before they've melted, they're white and that makes the earth more reflective than it'll be once they're gone.

61 Yankee  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:52:47pm

re: #59 Ojoe

Thanks Ojoe - makes sense. Anyone know what solar radioactivity levels were 15 million years ago compared with today?

62 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:53:49pm

re: #61 Yankee

Thanks Ojoe - makes sense. Anyone know what solar radioactivity levels were 15 million years ago compared with today?

I remember. It was the same. :-)

63 ludwigvanquixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:59:55pm

re: #54 goddamnedfrank

Yes, you were virtually alone were roundly attacked for your tone. My point exactly.

Yeah. I have to say getting patted on the back for not being racist is a little like getting patted on the back for not stealing things...

And he really was pretty rude and condescending long before I got there.

64 ludwigvanquixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:00:48pm

re: #55 BryanS

Thanks. I believe that you will find the links very thorough. I will gladly answer any questions as well.

65 ludwigvanquixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:02:06pm

re: #59 Ojoe

The CO2 increase may be partly compensating for a slightly cooler sun.

yeah except it is really not that much cooler. The propagandists make a much bigger deal about this than it is.

66 ryannon  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:03:30pm

re: #58 The Sanity Inspector

But, from the photo, she is teh Hawtness. So, let her do with my belongings what she will!

Yes, she be teh Glooble Whaming itself.

67 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:06:03pm

re: #63 ludwigvanquixote

Yeah. I have to say getting patted on the back for not being racist is a little like getting patted on the back for not stealing things...

And he really was pretty rude and condescending long before I got there.

"Dude," like I said he was coming off as a patronizing dillhole in his initial blog posting. Talking about how he was sure he could convince Charles that GW science was a croc, just given the chance. It devolved from there.

68 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:08:30pm

re: #67 goddamnedfrank

"Dude," like I said he was coming off as a patronizing dillhole in his initial blog posting. Talking about how he was sure he could convince Charles that GW science was a croc, just given the chance. It devolved from there.

Well did you see me catch him in five outright lies down there?

I really liked the one about no evidence that CO2 causes warming or that there are only two satellite data sets...

69 austin_blue  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:28:31pm

re: #68 LudwigVanQuixote

Well did you see me catch him in five outright lies down there?

I really liked the one about no evidence that CO2 causes warming or that there are only two satellite data sets...

LVQ, just logged on and read the thread. Well played! Those darned ol' facts are just *so* inconvenient to the great unwashed.

You are the mensch.

[[bows in deep respect]]

70 shane  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:47:21pm
71 Charles Johnson  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:51:01pm

re: #70 shane

From the same page, a different story.

That's not a different story at all. It has nothing to do with these new findings about CO2 levels. And in fact, it's an old story, that has since been debunked by newer evidence. Nice try, though.

72 Charles Johnson  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:51:50pm

re: #67 goddamnedfrank

"Dude," like I said he was coming off as a patronizing dillhole in his initial blog posting. Talking about how he was sure he could convince Charles that GW science was a croc, just given the chance. It devolved from there.

He didn't convince me.

73 freetoken  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:01:11pm

re: #71 Charles

What is so strange about the deniers trying to use that research about the PETM is that the science in that article ought to wake up people to the reality that changes in the atmosphere do indeed have knock on effects on the biosphere.

The deniers love to take this paragraph from that particular story:

In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."


and use it out of context. They claim that Dickens is saying that CO2 isn't responsible as greenhouse gas for warming the surface of the Earth. But that is quite far from what the actual science that was done is about, which was, how unusual the PETM turns out to be.

74 LudwigVanQuixote  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:01:51pm

re: #69 austin_blue

LVQ, just logged on and read the thread. Well played! Those darned ol' facts are just *so* inconvenient to the great unwashed.

You are the mensch.

[[bows in deep respect]]

Thank you sir!

75 mikhailtheplumber  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 10:30:49pm

Hey, this is not scientific, but quite a good piece on Global Warming.

Not new, but I hadn't seen it before. I know there's another way to link Youtube videos, but I only know this one. Sorry.

76 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 10:34:59pm

re: #72 Charles

He didn't convince me.

Yeah, never figured he would. I tried to stick to the elementary, very basic physics of light, because as my account email will attest, that's my deal. Still I regret initially labeling AJ's assertion that the Martial ice cap melting was "self evident" as a "non-thought." That probably wasn't helpful.

77 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 10:37:19pm

s/Martial/Martian

/drunk

78 ckb  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:52:30am

re: #65 ludwigvanquixote

yeah except it is really not that much cooler. The propagandists make a much bigger deal about this than it is.

There are propagandists on both sides, and "cooler sun" is a simplification of a much more complicated notion. Further, there are a lot of competing things solar related. There is solar output, global dimming/brightening in the atmosphere, and sunspots as they relate to the suns magnetic field and possibly cloud formation.

Solar output has been looked at extensively and pretty much ruled out for the main driver of climate change, although it has some effect.

I've never seen a good study on how much the global brightening has been a factor over the last 30 years while particulate pollution has been decreased significantly.

Sunspots and sun's magnetic field is being studied extensively by Svensmark, and is still a valid theory for explaining how well the climate tracks the solar cycle.

I think of all these things when I hear "cooler sun" in a non-scientific context. (i.e. from a propogandist :-)

My thought on this post is that the study contains no scientific evidence of CO2 being a driver or a non-driver. The notion about it having "lag time" as a driver does not make sense when coupled with C02 lagging behind temperature changes as measured over the last 800,000 years. CO2 has been a trailing indicator of a warming climate.

Lastly, why are there two LQVs? One with caps and one without?

79 edgesitter  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:40:40am

Beer absorbs much more CO2 when it is cooled than it will absorb when it is warm. The same should be true of the oceans. The solution is to drink more beer.

80 AtadOFF  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:58:49am

re: #79 edgesitter

That's the kind of solution I could get behind.

81 AllanHateMe  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:47:53am

Those damn 20 million year old SUV's! Haha. This is pathetic. Find some hard science, undisputable science, science not based on provenly flawed models that shows that the weakest of the green house gases emitted by man is responsible for the global cooling, err warming. And then find some hard science that shows a possible temperature increase of a few degrees will be the end of the world. Do you know that the models used for this doom and gloom show that the isosphere should be heating up as fast as the surface temperature? Guess what, it's not. Do you know that the models predicted continuous temperature increases since the 1970's, but that hasn't happened either. Ignorance drives this hysteria.

82 Mike DeGuzman  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:52:31am

Why are people are worrying about global warming? There are other issues that are causing harm to our planet. Reducing CO2 levels does nothing to reduce real pollution. It does nothing to clean up our streams and rivers from dangerous mercury contamination. It does nothing to prevent sewage from polluting our drinking supplies. It doesn’t fix holes in the ozone layer, nor does it stop landfill chemicals from leaching into ground water. Even if CO2 levels plummeted in the next 20 years, we’d still have pollution problems.

83 RoughRider  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 8:40:16am

re: #8 Mich-again

So I wonder what caused that build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere 20 million years ago?

Damn cavemen with their SUV's and their coal-fired power plants and their incandescent light bulbs and whatnot.

84 captain america 1776  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 11:20:30am

•Earth’s temperature is always changing.
•Over time there have been periods when it has been colder than it is today.
•For most of the Phanerozoic it has been much warmer than it is today.
•Life has persisted during periods both hot and cold.
•There is no one “right” temperature.
•Carbon dioxide has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere.
•Over time there have been periods when CO2 has increased and decreased naturally.
•For most of the Phanerozoic it has been much higher than it is today.
•Life has persisted during periods with high CO2 and low CO2.
•CO2 levels will change with or without human contributions.
•Over time there have been a number of ice ages—Life has endured multiple ice ages.
•For most of the Phanerozoic there have been no persistent polar ice caps.
What the future holds climate scientists are unable to portend with all their computer models and IPCC consensus reports. The Earth and its climate are constantly changing—there is no one correct climate or temperature for our planet. Those who say CO2 is the most important factor in climate change, that human GHG emissions will cause runaway global warming, have no historical basis for such claims.

As Earth's climate history has shown, nothing predicted by the global warming alarmists would be unprecedented—Earth's climate has been colder than today's and much, much warmer. CO2 levels have also been many times higher than they currently are, even during ice ages. Ice ages come and go, caused by mechanisms mankind is powerless to control.

Excerpt from: [Link: theresilientearth.com...]

85 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 11:30:59am

re: #84 captain america 1776

How was humankind doing when the earth was much warmer and CO2 concentrations were much higher?

86 Mike DeGuzman  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 11:57:45am

re: #85 MinisterO

How about a cold beer under a shade! LOL :D

87 captain america 1776  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:10:54pm

re: #85 MinisterO

Go back as far back as the "Roman Warming" period circa 200BC-600AD. Temps where higher than now and civilizations thrived throughout the world. Or look at the medieval warming period circa 900AD-1300AD, once again civilizations began to thrive as compared to the periods in-between the aforementioned periods which saw the Dark Ages cold period circa 600AD-800AD and the outbreak of famine and plaque on a vast scale that decimated populations in the tens of million, and later the Little Ice Age, circa 1300AD-1850AD which also cast a huge shadow of death across the planet.

88 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:12:59pm

re: #87 captain america 1776

Many false and misleading statements there.

89 captain america 1776  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:17:27pm

re: #88 freetoken

Horse Apples! The dates I cited are historically acurate as is the correlation to warmer periods in Earth's history contributing to the conditions that benefit humankind.

90 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:54:03pm

re: #89 captain america 1776

Sadly, no. Atmospheric CO2 concentration was lower in those periods, and temperatures were hardly, if at all, warmer.

91 LudwigVanQuixote  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:09:32pm

re: #84 captain america 1776

Wow, the complete list of soundbyte talking points from the deniers...

Look, every single one of those points is debunked at length on this site.

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

Look them up, they are even listed by category.

92 Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 2:14:40pm

Ah, 15 to 20 million years ago. Man, those were the days. The last time I was really warm.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

We feel more like we do now.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

ggt
Leona's Sister Gerri
12 minutes ago
Views: 9 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Daniel Ballard
Prove Mitt's Not a Unicorn-Apologies To The Unicorns
1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Views: 37 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Out of Gas
2 hours, 7 minutes ago
Views: 64 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

I AM BREITBART!
Seattle Manhunt Launched After Deadly Cafe Shootings, Carjacking
2 hours, 23 minutes ago
Views: 66 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Shiplord Kirel
Dragon to Depart Station Thursday
3 hours, 34 minutes ago
Views: 33 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Randall Gross
Citadel Malware Delivers Reveton Ransomware in attempts to extort money
4 hours, 26 minutes ago
Views: 105 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2

Channeling Confucius
From the previous Diamond Jubilee: Kipling's 'Recessional'
4 hours, 57 minutes ago
Views: 69 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Bob Dillon
REVEALED: Hundreds of Words to Avoid Using Online if You Don't Want the Government Spying on You
6 hours, 2 minutes ago
Views: 135 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2

Learned Mother of Zion
Native Americans Have Jewish DNA!
6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Views: 255 • Comments: 9
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 6

Eclectic Infidel
Mitt Romney for a better Amercia!
6 hours, 26 minutes ago
Views: 132 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

 Frank says:

Shoot low, they're riding Shetlands -- European Zappa distributors Music For Nations on the occasion of some anniversary of theirs.