Posted on 06/01/2006 1:02:47 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The movie "Day Before Tomorrow"--environmentalists and climatologists dream movie.
Wasn't Lech Walesa a North Pole?
I didn't know they had gas guzzling SUVs 55 million years ago.
The tropics temperature increased by only about 5 degrees Celsius while the North Pole increased by 43 degrees.
Clearly there is something wrong with the analysis. When things don't add up, then there is an error.
Perhaps the area sampled was farther South than they thought at the time and was also a shallow freshwater sea rather than ocean. Much of central North America was a shallow sea at the time. Perhaps this now Arctic ocean and Arctic plate location was tied into it at the time. That might explain it better.
Oh, so there must have been something else involved.
From the article: "People have conjectured that polar stratospheric clouds or hurricane-induced ocean heat transport might have played crucial roles in amplifying polar heating, but much work needs to be done to prove this. Mechanisms that feed back onto global warming are poorly understood and not well represented into our current generation of models. This should be of great concern and will continue to be debated and explored in future research."
Again, NOT greenhouse gas, and they don't really know enough about these processes at all.
From the article: "Even people who describe themselves as global warming skeptics can accept the fact that massive changes happened in the past because research shows that climate change is natural. But the real point is that not only is climate change natural, but it's also easy to set in motion. All it takes is an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases."
Compare that last sentence, all it takes is an increase in greenhouse gas - but he said right before that, greenhouse gases alone do NOT explain it. And he ends by saying we can all admit these things happened in the past and climate change is NATURAL.
ping
Read the report.
The location drilled, the Lomonosov Ridge was likely attached to the Eurasian plate 56 million years ago, much of which was also shallow sea at the time, somewhat South of where it is now but still close to the arctic circle.
The Modelers now have a problem....
drill in the ground and know what was happening 50 million years ago?
can Huber tell me what I ate for lunch if I fart in his general direction?
An inconvenient report.
You might find this interesting.
55 Million Years ago, there was no Isthmus of Panama and a much less constrained Drake Passage. The ocean currents circled the Globe at the Equator and there was no Gulf Stream. I would imagine the climate to have been drastically different. To compare 55 million years ago with now (or with the next 1000 years) is apples and oranges. This tells us precisely nothing about what to expect assuming arthropgenic global warming is even happening at all.
How does the theory that at one time the earth flopped 90 degrees, putting the north pole at the equator?
Clearly these "experts" are guessing. They've discovered that the pole or poles at one time were much, much warmer. If the poles were as warm as they say they were from this recent evidence, how did the earth survive? The melting of the ice should have swamped everything. These guys aren't idiots, but it sounds like they're clearly puzzled by what they've found and can only resort to the usual global warming scare words as a conclusion. The upshot of it is that at one time the earth was much warmer. And the world survived added warmth. Imagine that! (smirk)
Would not an increase in atmospheric water vapor induced by such elevated temperatures serve as an equalizing blanket to more evenly distribute atmospheric heat over the planetary surface?
It seems to me that increasing the global average temperature would increase evaporative activity over the oceanic surfaces, driving more water vapor into the atmosphere. That increase humidity would increase the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, while also increasing the incidence and size of clouds at all altitudes. Both taken together might well have a blanketing effect that, like the roof on a greenhouse, would serve to distribute local heat over a far greater area of the globe with an equalizing effect.
Do I need to detail for you the contradictions in this article? Or will you just stipulate that something is out of whack with that?
They have a correlation -- in this one instance, something might have caused methane ice trapped at the bottom of the sea to flood the atmosphere with Co2.
Now, did that Co2 cause the temp increase? Or, did whatever massive geologic event it was cause the temp increase, and the Co2 release was a by-product?
Suppose a long string of comets/space debris hit, and released the ice, and caused fires across the globe, and massive tectonic upheavals that created heat? I can imagine a thousand possible explanations for what happened.
They just don't know yet. Clearly their models -- the ones you folks so dearly rely on, are not even close to accurate.
This is just one more nail in the coffin for ya'll, it appears. It goes on and on about how bad the models are.
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.