In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming

NY Times ^ | November 7, 2006 | WILLIAM J. BROAD

[neverdem]

In recent years, scientists have made sizable gains in what was once considered an impossible art — reconstructing the history of Earth’s atmosphere back into the dim past. They can now peer across more than a half billion years.

The scientists have learned about the changing makeup of the vanished gases by teasing subtle clues from fossilized soils, plants and sea creatures. They have also gained insights from computer models that predict how phenomena like eroding rocks and erupting volcanoes have altered the planet’s evolving air. “It’s getting a lot more attention,” Michael C. MacCracken, chief scientist of the Climate Institute, a research group in Washington, said of the growing field.

For the first time, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that analyzes global warming, plans to include a chapter on the reconstructions in its latest report, due early next year.

The discoveries have stirred a little-known dispute that, if resolved, could have major implications. At issue is whether the findings back or undermine the prevailing view on global warming. One side foresees a looming crisis of planetary heating; the other, temperature increases that would be more nuisance than catastrophe.

Perhaps surprisingly, both hail from the same camp: scientists who study the big picture of Earth’s past, including geologists and paleoclimatologists.

Most public discussions of global warming concentrate on evidence from the last few hundred or, at most, few thousand years. And some climate scientists remain unconvinced that data from the deep past are solid enough to be relevant to the debates.

But the experts who peer back millions of years, though they may debate what their work means, do agree on the relevance of their findings. They also agree that the eon known as the Phanerozoic, a lengthy span from the present to 550 million...

[neverdem]

This is the first story in the science section. Al Gore might have a stroke.

[Names Ash Housewares]

The big picture is hard to impress on a typical human, obssessed with events in ones self centered tiny lifespan. The panic of the 24 hour news cycle screaming with self importance and doom unless we just listen to them dominates.

[neverdem]

The carbon dioxide levels were roughly 16 times higher than today. Surprisingly, the scientists said, this appeared to coincide with wide glaciation, an analysis, wrote Crayton J. Yapp and Harald Poths in the journal Nature, that “suggests that the climate models require modification.”

[gondramB]

All reasonable measures say it has been much hotter multiple times in the past, although not in the last 10,000 years.


That doesn't mean its not gonna be a problem if it returns to higher temperatures.

But even though the temperature is certainly going up sharply for the last 30 years that does not mean humans are causing it.

Its three different issues - that's part Al wants to gloss over - that warming, the problems coming from the warming and causation are not the same.

[Antonello]

Skeptics say CO2 crusaders simply find the Phanerozoic data embarrassing and irreconcilable with public alarms. “People come to me and say, ‘Stop talking like this, you’re hurting the cause,’ ” said Dr. Giegengack of Penn.

A sure sign of an agenda corrupting science.

[Dallas59]

Here's the NYT chart...

[TBP]

Global warming appears to be a natural cycle, nothing more.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

The reason climate science is such a fraud is they never mention what the Earth (and weather) was like before and after Noah's flood (only 4000 years ago). All this talk about millions of years is pure fantasy and conjecture. I mean how can you be a legitimate scientist if you don't acknowledge the Chief Architect of all creation, and His word the Bible.

[Mike Darancette]

The Global Warming™ pornographers won't like this.

[gnarledmaw]

"That doesn't mean its not gonna be a problem if it returns to higher temperatures."

That doesn't mean theres gonna be a "problem" either.

Ive noticed to many, especially the more hysterical warming-wackos, "higher temperatures" brings to mind images of global desertification.

Earths history suggests the opposite is true.

Im planning a nice bannanna plantation in Central Canada...

[gondramB]

I wasn't think so much of farming as effects on coastal populations, which are quite large.

[gnarledmaw]

I wasnt really talking farming either. Im suggesting moving, I believe Ive read that there would be a net gain in arable temperate land. Now I suppose that coastal populations could stay and try to grow gills or build megadikes around every city but I just dont see those things as being much in the way of a survival solution.

I understand that rapidly migrating masses can and have caused turmoil. The wise plan then, if sea levels show any significant, immanent or "rapid" rise, is for governments to do their best to work out plans to handle the situation in advance of migrant arrival and for individuals to stop investing in beach front property.

The PETM didnt swallow coasts overnight and whatever this event will come to be called (if anything) wont either. The only reason theres a "problem" is because some wish there to be one as a tool to control masses. Admitting that there is no way to dial down the output of the sun or that mankind has experienced many mass migrations just doesnt gain those few any additional power.

[neverdem]

I'm surprised the Times printed this.

The Nation's Lieberman Factor (defeat "hard-bitten Democratic leftists ...bidding for control")

Bill Whittle: SEEING THE UNSEEN Part 1

N.Y. Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[wodinoneeye]

Most inhabited 'coastal areas' are sinking far faster because of groundwater pumping than any ocean rise from the current ending of the 'mini-IceAge' (that which the Libtard Chicken Littles decry as 'man-made' carbon related).

[Hardastarboard]

They have also gained insights from computer models

Ah, yes. The almighty computer models, infallible recreators of reality. I've created some computer models in Excel that disprove global warming. Want to see them?

Oh, and whoever taught this writer to write should have taught them to GET TO THE POINT. Half of the first part of this article should have been edited out. Yeesh what a wordy, pointless bunch of rambling. I recognize the symptoms because I tend to suffer the same problem myself.

Did I ever tell you about a cat I once owned? Well anyway, he was a big fat, gray tomcat . . .

[Thermalseeker]

All reasonable measures say it has been much hotter multiple times in the past, although not in the last 10,000 years.

That stands to reason since it is generally accepted that the earth has been exiting an ice age for about the past 18,000 or so years....

[gondramB]

>>That stands to reason since it is generally accepted that the earth has been exiting an ice age for about the past 18,000 or so years....<<

Yep, that is one of several reason we cant just assume global warming is human caused.

[GOPJ]

Skeptics say CO2 crusaders simply find the Phanerozoic data embarrassing and irreconcilable with public alarms. “People come to me and say, ‘Stop talking like this, you’re hurting the cause,’ ” said Dr. Giegengack of Penn.

A sure sign of an agenda corrupting science.

Ding, ding, ding -- we have a winnah...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[FreedomProtector]

bookmarking....