Posted on 01/05/2007 9:46:03 AM PST by presidio9
;->
You can say that again, brother!!
Another problem with this article: 300 Million years ago (Carboniferous/Early Permian) was a time of great diversification and biotic expansion. Oxygen levels, and temperature, were much higher than now. Life flourished. It was only later, when carbon levels dropped, that earth experienced a massive floral extinction. Now, if they are,in fact, talking of the end Permian, they may have a point. Carbon levels then may have reached an all time of 3000 ppm (Ward: OUT OF THIN AIR) but there was also a massive drop in oxygen (to about 12% -- current level is 21% and the Carboniferous high about 31%).
In any event the 2000 ppm figure knocked me right off. Will now go back, read the rest, and see how much science was able to creep through the author's breathless prose.
Wow, the full-court press by the media on this alarmist topic is amazing! Of course they're playing offense for the Democrats in Congress, as usual. They're trying to get the sheeple into a state of panic so whatever socialist legislation the Donks write will get popular support.
A few factoids though to amaze the global warming hysteriacs:
1. The average mean temperature in Montana during the Eocene was 27 degrees warmer than now. Oh, and life thrived! The cooler Oligocene age that followed (still much warmer than now) was less diverse than either of the warmer epochs that bracketed it.
2. The Arctic ice cap is a relatively recent development. It did not exist until the mid-Pliocene (about 1.5 MYA).
3. Pleistocene climate cycles, no matter how they're tracked, match most closely to the Croll-Milankovitch cycles (the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, the tilt of it's axis, and the wobble, or "precession", of that axis).
4. Even living in an interglacial as we are, our era, geologically speaking, is far colder than virtually anything that has come before.
And, finally: 5. Warmer temperatures support biotic diversity. Colder temperatures inhibit biotic diversity. Ergo: Global warming is good for diversity. :-)
From Berner&Scotese at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Excellent article about climate 300 million years ago Climate and the Carboniferous Period
Stated in the posted article without additional comment.
I would caution little comfort in that fact. Remember that 2005 was pegged as higher than 1998 by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NOAA had it second). With a moderate El Nino going now, the prediction of 2007 being the warmest ever has a chance of being right, but it's a long way to December.
The reason for slightly cooler mid-century temps is natural variability and some contribution of sulfur aerosol blocking. The climate response in increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases is not expected to be linear; given that virtually everyone, skeptic or non-, will state that climate is a complex system, I fail to understand why there's an expectation of a simple correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 and higher temperatures!
Curious points: one, the satellite temps start in 1979, so they don't cover the last "half" of the century; two, the minimum trend of three separate analyses is now about 0.13 C per decade (the other analyses are at about 0.2 C per decade); three, the 0.36 F figure is for the surface, and the satellites measure the temperature of the lower troposphere (and also the middle, troposphere+mesosphere, and also the stratosphere).
Measurements of stable carbon isotope ratios in marine sediments, primarily.
so the only thing I can imagine is they are somehow inferring atmosphere from sedimentary rock.
Correct, but sediments aren't necessarily rock yet. Amazing how some deep sea sediments are still "muddy" deep, deep down.
I agree, awful writing. It's bad enough that the science is complex; it's worse when the media makes it more confusing by being wildly inaccurate.
Rev Bob: one of the main concerns is a rapid pace of warming such that ecosystems will be unable to adapt to the change. When rate-of-change is the concern, the actual temperature compared to any other time is not as important. Extinction rates go way, way up whenever climate change is rapid. (And there are sound reasons for that.)
I concur, and that is the point I'm trying to make. The GW crowd has consistently harped on CO2 as the leading greenhouse gas and blah, blah, blah. According to Dr. Baliunas, There are 11 key gasses that comprise our atmosphere and climatologists understand how fewer than half of them affect overall temperature.
I'll welcome that 1.44 degree increase when I'm 84.
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.