Posted on 10/27/2003 8:38:20 AM PST by cogitator
And think, industry of 55 million years ago so much cleaner then today. What about sea current changes? What about platonics and location of continents on effect of heating/cooling and again currents? Why not consider those questions?
These factors are considered in paleoclimate models.
Scientists have filled in a key piece of the global climate picture for a period 55 million years ago that is considered one of the most abrupt and extreme episodes of global warming in Earth's history. The new results from an analysis of sediment cores from the ocean floor are consistent with theoretical predictions of how Earth's climate would respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Maybe we should look at a bit larger picture hmmm? Cherry pick your data like these folks have and you can "prove" global temperature decreases with increasing CO2 concentration.
Global Surface Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ). Temperature after C.R. Scotese
|
Or look at the whole picture and for causal connections and it becomes obvious that there is little support for the idea that CO2 has very much to due with global climate at all in comparison with other factors.
- "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.
***
Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]
- "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "
[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]
- "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."
Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis
- "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."
"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."
***
"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."
What is the point of this article?
To mislead?
To deflect?
A red herring?
I expect to reply to your previous postings on the "Rushing to Judgment" thread either late today or tomorrow.
I'm looking for your response, as the debate there directly addresses issues raised in this post.
Rushing to Judgment (Global Warming Questioned - Long but Good)
Their climate models show that a rise in "greenhouse gases" would produce a temperature rise which proves that methane clathrates were the cause of the maximum 55 mega years ago.
Climatology is a science of circular deduction, a new superior form of logic that proves all of the politically correct suppositions that just have to be right.
And gigatons would be billions of tons, not trillions, a trifling error.
Some scientists deserve respect, others don't.
This statement suggests that the worst possible opinion of this scientist impersonator may be too mild.
That statement is pure politics, zero science.
When current computer simulations can take input from known climatic data from, say, between 1850 and 1950, and accurately predict the known record between 1950 and 2003, then that statement can become a scientific statement as opposed to pure unadulterated political bullsh**.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room
And you won't miss a thread on FR because e-bot will keep you informed.
But that is the cause!
A note of clarification - the article stated:
releasing an estimated 2,000 gigatons (2 trillion tons) of methane
If one billion is 10 to the 9th power, 1,000 billion is 1 trillion, or ten to the 12th power (in US terms, not British terms), then I believe that the conversion as stated is proper and accurate.
Because this is not about science. It is a political crusade, the essnce of which is that the industrialized nations gained their power and wealth from inequitable consumption of earth's resources (notably the US with only 4.5% of earth's population using 25% of the planetary resources), so now it's time to pay back the third world.
In fact I suspect a multivariate correlation analysis would show that the correlation was negative.
Actually there is a slightly postive correlation that is rooted in first principles. But, it is not anything near that used in the global warming hype.
From observed data:
0.27oC change in Earth's surface temperature for CO2 doubling is depicted in the following graphic:
Which appears to merely be a confirmation of what can determined from first principles:
Given:
The temperature of the Earth's surface with an atmosphere is 288oK (+15oC).
and the blackbody temperature of the Earth without atmosphere at 255oK (-18oC)
One may apply the Stefan-Boltzman relation:
E=sT4
where:
E = total amount of radiation emitted by an object per square meter (Watts m-2)
s is a constant called the Stefan-Boltzman constant = 5.67 x 10-8 Watts m-2 K-4
T is the temperature of the object in K
to determine the total GHG radiative forcing necessary to maintain the atmosphere/surface greenhouse temperature at the current 288oK surface temperature of the earth.
Under constant albedo conditions (CO2 does not contribute to earth's albedo) The total flux at the Earth's troposphere/surface system due to greenhouse factors is:
Flux (E288) at the Earth's surface with atmosphere = 5.67*10-8(288oK)4 = 390.08 w/m2
Blackbody flux (E255) without atmosphere = 5.67*10-8(255oK)4 = 279.74 w/m2
==================================================================
difference = 110.34 w/m2
The (natural + anthropogenic) CO2 contribution is 3.6% of atmospheric greenhouse warming. When expressed in terms of overall radiative forcing acting on both atmosphere and surface all radiative flux associated with CO2 must, of necessity, be:
0.036*110.34 w/m2 = 3.97 w/m2
However, CO2 IR flux at surface temperature from CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is less than half that total CO2 contribution of 3.97w/m2 to the system, (at least half of the CO2 IR flux is radiated and/or scattered by clouds & dust upward to be lost to space and atmospheric heating rather than contributing towards surface warming.)
Re-cycling of Infra-Red Energy
According to Dr Hugh Ellsaesser's IPCC submission, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere (tropopause level) due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm-2. At the surface it is 0.5 - 1.5 wm-2". Schlesinger & Mitchell (1985), estimated this surface flux at 2 wm-2. Thus, depending on the model, or modeler, the estimates for increased surface flux following a CO2 doubling, varies between +0.5 and +2 wm-2. An above-averaged figure of +1.5 wm-2 will be assumed here for purposes of analysis and comparison.
Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration can only add 1.5w/m2 at the surface for a total surface radiative forcing of
390.08+3.97 = 391.58w/m2
Giving us
(391.58/5.67*10-8)0.25-288oK = 0.277oK (C)increase in surface temperature for doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
A result well within any reasonable expectation of our rough graphic estimate of 0.27oC associated with CO2 doubling derived from the paleo CO2-temperature record in my prior replies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.