Posted on 10/27/2003 8:38:20 AM PST by cogitator
ROTFLMAO! You really fell for that one! That "concern" is all about making money on methane hydrate by subsidizing it with Kyoto price fixing, or do really think that Julie and Susan Packard are competent energy investors? Yup, just sprinkle a few grants into the academic maw and they'll get the old whispering campaign going. Maybe there's a reason Susan's husband is the chief scientist in charge of spending the $130 million they (along with Exxon/Mobil) sunk into a federally subsidized public private research partnership at Stanford on that very topic?
What might happen if they disturb more than they recover and that hydrate bubbles to the surface? After sinking in all that money will they just pack up and go home to save the environment? Will they be subject to ANY oversight or liability?
Not a chance! They're members in good standing of the NRDC, and put a few dollars into protection money with a fat donation to The Energy Foundation. That means they enjoy the exemption from ALL liability pursuant to Clinton EO 12986 which indemnified the IUCN from any environmental liability. Seeing as they don't know how to run Hewlett Packard, perhaps Susan and Julie had to find (fund) a safe way to stay in clover? There's nothing quite like enviroracketeering for a safe investment!
The hucksters, the scam artists, once again bullshi****g the ignorant the clueless.
Lots of heat (pun intended) but no light whatsoever!
First of all, let me be among the first to suggest that the world's total economic output for the next 600 years be used to solve the "problem".
It's for the children!
99.999% of people have no concept whatsoever of how far it is from the Sun to Pluto. None. Zero. Zilch.
I've always been of the opinion that one of the greatest aids to teaching science would be to build several "Solar Systems" across the United States (of necessity limited to wide open areas). Build them to scale, and start with the "Sun" being a meter in diameter. How far away would Pluto be? What size? Anyone?
That improves the fit they can imagine for just the below 1000 ppm part. However, it also means the largest variation they can expect from present levels, to have any effect, is on the order of on more factor of 2. And we can measure the wattage from modest CO2 concentration changes. It is on the order 1-2 watts per square meter, maybe 3 being extremely generous. And that just isn't enough to account for more than 0.5C warming.
In other words, they can imagine a narrower portion of the scale being the only part that matters. That improves correlation fit with long time data. But it also caps the size of the effect to be expected, overall, on physical grounds (not enough power to overcome re-radiated light at a higher temperature). Too low to account for the size changes they want it to.
It is also striking on your graph that the largest effects seem nearly periodic but with an enourmous period of 140 to 150 million years. Lasting for variable lengths of time, but only a short portion of the overall graph. Now, people may not realize it but when you start talking about numbers that large for the time, the solar system can no longer be considered as an isolated system.
The proper motions of stars in the immediate neighborhood goes as high as 140 km per second (e.g. Barnard's Star). A more typical value is 30-50 km per second. What that means is if you divide the "years" by 2,500 to 10,000 you get LY traveled. Within 10 LY there are only a small number of stars, and we can look and see that encounters are unlikely. (E.g. Bardnard's will get as close at 3.8 LY in another 10,000 years). Which means on a time scale as long as ordinary ice ages, 10,000 to 100,000 years, we can consider the solar system to be effectively an isolated system.
But increase the time to 140 to 150 million years, and the proper distance traveled by typical stars rises to something like 10,000 to 25,000 LY. There are "thick disk" stars that eccentrically go above the galactic plane and back below it again, for instance, with speeds of ~50 km per second in the middle part of their path, and maximum deviations from that plane of 3500 to 5000 LY. Even if you estimate mean speed in the "z" direction at half the 50 km per second figure, each such "thick disker" goes out and comes back past the plane with a period on the order 100 million years.
Other processes come into play on such time scales, too. Sirius A is estimated to be only 300-500 million years old. It's white dwarf companion was a giant star at some previous time on the same rough scale, since giants only last about a billion years from nuclear ignition to "still hot but no fusion fuel left" remnant.
To expect every cause of variation on hundred million year time scales to be internal to the earth's atmospheric system, or even to the earth-sun system, would be "astronomically naive". Some encounters might be ruled out by continued stability of planet orbits, and some effects would have characteristic time scales for which things in your data would probably be too long. But it is a leap to exclude it, once the years looked back gets above even 25 million. Stars are moving thousands of LY over those time scales.
I'd be much more likely to be convinced if the article had actual data in it, instead of conclusion claims.
I think it's supposed to be combined with the phony illness/breast implant articles for the headline:
"Reduction In Massive Breast Implants Causes Global Warming" Since the elimination of silicon breast implants in 1992, scientific data now proves global warming is on the rise... Reasearchers at the Pamela Anderson Clinic for Inflated Frontals (PACIFic) have proven that...
Quote mining alert. You didn't even quote the whole sentence. "There aren't many places in the Pacific where you can recover sediments of this age in which the fossils are not so recrystallized that they've lost their original geochemical signatures," Zachos said. Your misquotation changes the meaning of the original.
A couple of observations on your graph. First, making out the best possible case for the warming crowd (not that I buy it, but it is the right way to investigate things to make the other guy's case as strong as possible), you might imagine no correlation for anything above 1000 ppm on the left scale of your graph, say because the atmosphere gets saturated at that point. I.e. the sky is "closed" from below in CO2 frequencies, and any additional amount is way off into diminishing returns.
That is the case long before you ever get to 1000 ppm, it is true for the current atmosphere (extinction of 15micron radiation occurs within the first 100ft of the atmosphere.
That is why radiative forcing from CO2 absorption wavelengths is proportional to the log of concentration rather than a linear function, and absorption at the CO2 spectrum under the Earth's blackbody curve, at a mere 300ppm, is saturated.
The HITRAN calculation for CO2 absorption for a doubling of CO2 concentration from current levels is instructive and indicative of the problem that the global warming crowd face.
In the presense of water vapor, the spectrum broadens substantially but absorption/emissivity remains proportionate to the log of concentration.
The reality is a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration over current levels, that the UN/IPCC "story line" pretends, even if were true, could not induce significant temperature change whatever its source.
Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?
"It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO2 (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The Global Climate [14]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m2, we get a similar value of 0.015 degC."
Ocean Burps and Climate Change
This provides the research background and data/evidence that there was a large methane release at this time, and also discusses why other possible causes of the observed effect (a major 12C/13C ratio shift) aren't as plausible as the methane hypothesis.
I found this Web page very interesting, informative and understandable: until I read the article that led off this thread, I'd never heard of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Note - nothing in this actual study is addressed to a particle of this. It is taken as established by previous studies.
"Its effect on the low-latitude surface ocean has remained unresolved due to the absence of reliable sea surface temperature (SST) records from the tropics."
Meaning, no reliable data. No data? No reliable data, anyway.
"Zachos et al. now present an SST reconstruction based on a sediment core from the tropical Pacific Ocean."
55 million years ago. India is an island, Australia is part of Antarctica, etc.
"After measuring both oxygen isotopes and Mg/Ca in the skeletons of long-dead surface-dwelling foraminifera, they produced a record of temperature and salinity and found that SSTs rose by approximately 5°C"
Science Express abstract rather than journalist spin.
The whole ocean, including deep ocean, supposedly got 5 C warmer. The cold surfaces in the upper lattitudes supposedly got more than proportionally warmer. For which the measurements are...
That the temperatures seen by these people in their cores matched the whole ocean numbers.
And the reason to believe the upper lattitude figure, twice as high, is? Not in this study.
Connection of any of the above to the cause of the past warming? Nothing in this study. To scale of effects traceable to greenhouse. Nothing in this study.
The great success of the climate models is supposed to be that they say "if'n it gets a whole lot warmer, that chilly icewater up 'round Greenland won't be so chilly. Meanwhile, warm tropical waters will be warm and tropical."
Therefore, anything a global warming modeler says about anything must be true. You heard it here.
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.