Posted on 02/17/2006 8:54:21 AM PST by cogitator
Is this just another leftist professor trying another angle on their dogma that blames man for climate change? More nonsense from the pagans.
Warming and CO2 increases are often coincident, but it doesn't mean one causes the other. The phrase "climate forcing agents" implies a degree of certainty that would come from a testable scientific theory rather than an artifact of computer models repeatedly shown to be wrong.
The failure of the Biosphere 2 experiment indicates that scientists still don't understand the mechanisms by which nature maintains a viable equilibrium. So where does that leave the poor layman in such an contentious debate as the global environment? Who does the layman believe? I know the environmental movement is politically motivated. The truth lies in the middle somewhere between the two extremes ("the sky is falling" vs. "no problemo") but closer to which end? I think we still need to keep an open mind toward science rather than base our decision solely upon political beliefs. Can the amount of CO2 released by burning oil and coal overwhelm the rate at which the oceans and plant life can aborb it? I don't know.
Bring on the global warming, it was -22 degrees when I drove to work this morning!!!
Define "normal". At past times, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been EIGHT TIMES higher than today's, yet the global temperature wasn't hugely higher than now.
It's real hard to tell if a geochemist is politically liberal based on their scientific resume. Check out post 16.
Real Climate are overt Gaia worshippers. At the end of the day, that is what this is all about.
What is your handle at Real Climate?
As I said in a previous reply, the institution's political alignment may or may not influence an individual professor's politics. This professor has been studying the PETM for awhile now, and I expect that his understanding of it, and his ability to compare then and now in a climate sense, is not overly influenced by politics. The media interpretation of what he says, and even the press releases produced by the institution, may certainly give it a lefthand spin.
Which scientists?? There are lots of scientists who are skeptical about global warming as "human caused"--they just don't get much press.
The earth is definitely warmer--but so is Mars. There ain't no "fossil fuel burning" there.
No--the difficulty is telling HOW MUCH of today's warming is human-induced, and how much is "nature-induced".
Carbon dioxide is continuously removed from the atmosphere by plants,
Repeat Loud and often that most plants are CO2 starved!!!!
See what you think about the PETM after reading this:
Ocean Burps and Climate Change
The article posted says this:
"During the PETM, unknown factors released vast quantities of methane that had been lying frozen in sediment deposits on the ocean floor. After release, most of the methane reacted with dissolved oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which made the seawater more acidic. Acidic seawater corrodes the carbonate shells of microplankton, dissolving them before they can reach the ocean floor and reducing the carbonate content of marine sediment."
I also discovered, for the first time, that the triggering episode is thought to be plate-tectonic changes causing landslides on continental slopes.
This page also indicates that there is a competing comet impact explanation for the PETM -- but I don't think Zachos ascribes to it.
More rotifers! We need more rotifers!
The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing indicates that the current rate of absorption by oceans and plant life is being exceeded by the rate of addition to the atmosphere.
PS. It's thirty-five degrees colder than normal here in the People's Republic.
"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
"This cooling has already killed hundereds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."
- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
Great quote there - "Go harmonize with nature" (as they leave the kook eco terrorists stranded in the middle of the Amazon jungle without any survival gear). Man I loved that.
Normal for the Eocene. It's not easy to find, but I think a range of 300-450 ppm is generally accepted, and during the PETM it could have gone as high as 2,000 ppm.
Gaia worshiper.
Generally true for glacial-interglacial transitions, which is driven by Milankovitch forcing, primarily. We're currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rapid rate during a very stable interglacial. That's why the PETM situation is an interesting case for comparison.
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.