Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ditto
It looks like changing your story to fit the fad is the way.

Not really. The artcle you posted is about studies of the Oligocene and Miocene, 20-25.5 million years ago. The article I posted that led off the thread is about the unique Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was 55 million years ago. Different times, different climate change mechanisms.

Cool?

74 posted on 02/17/2006 11:23:09 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: cogitator
Cool? If he think rapid climate change was due to periodical orbital anomalies 20 M years ago, why does he need a different mechanism for 55 M years ago? Are those orbital changes periodic or are they not periodic?

And why no mention of the much higher methane levels of the Paleocene and the 21 times stronger greenhouse potential of methane over CO2?

What I smell is a funding deficit. Orbital changes won't draw Ford, Pew or even NASA money. Methane isn't a by-product of industry and not a big field of study unless you want to be laughed at by the general public for studying cow farts.

But if you can have those billions of tons CH4 meet free O2 on their bubble to the surface and convert into that dastardly CO2, then you have something that you can beat industry over the head with to make it worthy of funding.

BTW. I wonder what happens to the 4 leftover hydrogen atoms in his model? Maybe he's come up with the key to a hydrogen economy --- farts in the bathtub, so to speak.

81 posted on 02/17/2006 11:48:04 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson