From a Louisiana State University Press Release Oct 1, 2009
Algae and Pollen Grains Provide Evidence of Remarkably Warm Period in Antarctica’s History
Palynomorphs from sediment core give proof to sudden warming in mid-Miocene era
The ANDRILL drilling rig in Antarctica
For Sophie Warny, LSU assistant professor of geology and geophysics and curator at the LSU Museum of Natural Science, years of patience in analyzing Antarctic samples with low fossil recovery finally led to a scientific breakthrough. She and colleagues from around the world now have proof of a sudden, remarkably warm period in Antarctica that occurred about 15.7 million years ago and lasted for a few thousand years.
Last year, as Warny was studying samples sent to her from the latest Antarctic Geologic Drilling Program, or ANDRILL AND-2A, a multinational collaboration between the Antarctic Programs of the United States (funded by the National Science Foundation), New Zealand, Italy and Germany, one sample stood out as a complete anomaly.
“First I thought it was a mistake, that it was a sample from another location, not Antarctica, because of the unusual abundance in microscopic fossil cysts of marine algae called dinoflagellates. But it turned out not to be a mistake, it was just an amazingly rich layer,” said Warny. “I immediately contacted my U.S. colleague, Rosemary Askin, our New Zealand colleagues, Michael Hannah and Ian Raine, and our German colleague, Barbara Mohr, to let them know about this unique sample as each of our countries had received a third of the ANDRILL samples.”
Some colleagues had noted an increase in pollen grains of woody plants in the sample immediately above, but none of the other samples had such a unique abundance in algae, which at first gave Warny some doubts about potential contamination.
“But the two scientists in charge of the drilling, David Harwood of University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and Fabio Florindo of Italy, were equally excited about the discovery,” said Warny. “They had noticed that this thin layer had a unique consistency that had been characterized by their team as a diatomite, which is a layer extremely rich in fossils of another algae called diatoms.”
All research parties involved met at the Antarctic Research Facility at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Together, they sampled the zone of interest in great detail and processed the new samples in various labs. One month later, the unusual abundance in microfossils was confirmed.
Among the 1,107 meters of sediments recovered and analyzed for microfossil content, a two-meter thick layer in the core displayed extremely rich fossil content. This is unusual because the Antarctic ice sheet was formed about 35 million years ago, and the frigid temperatures there impede the presence of woody plants and blooms of dinoflagellate algae.
“We all analyzed the new samples and saw a 2,000 fold increase in two species of fossil dinoflagellate cysts, a five-fold increase in freshwater algae and up to an 80-fold increase in terrestrial pollen,” said Warny. “Together, these shifts in the microfossil assemblages represent a relatively short period of time during which Antarctica became abruptly much warmer.”
These palynomorphs, a term used to described dust-size organic material such as pollen, spores and cysts of dinoflagellates and other algae, provide hard evidence that Antarctica underwent a brief but rapid period of warming about 15 million years before present.
LSU’s Sophie Warny and her New Zealand colleague, Mike Hannah, sampling the ANDRILL cores at the Antarctic Research Facility.
“This event will lead to a better understanding of global connections and climate forcing, in other words, it will provide a better understanding of how external factors imposed fluctuations in Earth’s climate system,” said Harwood. “The Mid-Miocene Climate Optimum has long been recognized in global proxy records outside of the Antarctic region. Direct information from a setting proximal to the dynamic Antarctic ice sheets responsible for driving many of these changes is vital to the correct calibration and interpretation of these proxy records.”
These startling results will offer new insight into Antarctica’s climatic past – insights that could potentially help climate scientists better understand the current climate change scenario.
“In the case of these results, the microfossils provide us with quantitative data of what the environment was actually like in Antarctica at the time, showing how this continent reacted when climatic conditions were warmer than they are today,” said Warny.
According to the researchers, these fossils show that land temperatures reached a January average of 10 degrees Celsius – the equivalent of approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit – and that estimated sea surface temperatures ranged between zero and 11.5 degrees Celsius. The presence of freshwater algae in the sediments suggests to researchers that an increase in meltwater and perhaps also in rainfall produced ponds and lakes adjacent to the Ross Sea during this warm period, which would obviously have resulted in some reduction in sea ice.
These findings most likely reflect a poleward shift of the jet stream in the Southern Hemisphere, which would have pushed warmer water toward the pole and allowed a few dinoflagellate species to flourish under such ice-free conditions. Researchers believe that shrub-like woody plants might also have been able to proliferate during an abrupt and brief warmer time interval.
“An understanding of this event, in the context of timing and magnitude of the change, has important implications for how the climate system operates and what the potential future response in a warmer global climate might be,” said Harwood. “A clear understanding of what has happened in the past, and the integration of these data into ice sheet and climate models, are important steps in advancing the ability of these computer models to reproduce past conditions, and with improved models be able to better predict future climate responses.”
While the results are certainly impressive, the work isn’t yet complete.
“The SMS Project Science Team is currently looking at the stratigraphic sequence and timing of climate events evident throughout the ANDRILL AND-2A drillcore, including those that enclose this event,” said Florindo. “A broader understanding of ice sheet behavior under warmer-than-present conditions will emerge.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
P Wilson:
No, my statements are based on the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Steffan-Boltzmann Equation for radiative transfer (although to get the energy balance result, you really only need to know that radiative emission is an increasing function of the temperature).
And, as I noted, even if you don’t want to believe long-understood physical laws, you can look at the satellite measurements of the radiation emitted from the earth. Your views are in conflict with the entire field of remote sensing, which is arguably the most important technology of the satellite era.
There is no serious scientific argument regarding the radiative forcing due to a given increase in CO2. As I’ve noted before, even Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen agree with the statement that the radiative forcing for a CO2 doubling is around 4 W/m^2, give our take ~10%. This is not controversial stuff in the scientific community.
ocean acidification: (In response to Joel). Oceans have a stable ph of 8.1 which is alkalinbe. That is: There is no acidification in the oceans. When ocean life accept c02 then the following occurs
CO2 + H2O H2CO3 H+ + HCO3- H+ + H+ + CO32-
which means that plants control their own internal economy. Far from acidity, and this is the equation that the Royal Society omitted to mention then they did their paper on acidificaion of the oceans.
In reality, over the millions of years, when the air was c02 rich, it absorbed into the oceans to give this present ph of 8.1. During the dinosaur period, some 5x the c02 today, absorbed by the oceans. So in fact even this didn’t turn the oceans into acid. We should infer that the oceans are less acicid today than at anytime since the hast glacial, on that basis.
In reality, c02 forms an equilibrium with carbonate to give healthy marine biology and maintain a stable ph
What does this outgoing radiation stand as afigure? If it is heat from the oceans then I can accept. If it is heat from solid matter then not, as temperatures stabilise to the ambient temperature, from which point they cease to emit heat. (2nd law of thermoydnamics)
come to think of it, thats why a match goes cold very soon after its extinguished.
If this thesis was the correct one then that heat from the match would migrate elsewhere. It doesn’t.
footnote: Night vision and night temperature recording equipment shows that little to no radiation is given off by normal temperature matter. I’m afraid that the S Boltmann constant cannot be applied, as it can’t be used on gases and solids.
savethesharks says:
It is not an ad hom to simply call someone out on continuing to repeat the same arguments and claiming that noone has responded to them when in fact we have.
Actually, you are wrong. The scientific community has accepted the theory of AGW because of the evidence that has been presented.
So, if you think that you have no obligations, then that is fine with me. But, you are dooming yourself to irrelevance scientifically since the scientific community will go on accepting the current theory unless the “skeptic” side comes up with convincing counter-evidence. So far, this doesn’t look very promising. And, frankly, the “skeptic” side would do much better for itself if, rather than promulgating all sorts of nutty arguments, you guys just focused on issues where there is at least some significant scientific uncertainty, like the cloud feedback and its effect on the climate sensitivity. (To Roy Spencer’s credit, that is what he is doing for the most part, except for some ill-advised forays into the question of whether the current rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. And, while I doubt Spencer’s viewpoint will eventually carry the day, I do at least applaud him for raising in the peer-reviewed literature some hypotheses that, at least to this non-climate-scientist, seem scientifically-interesting.)
“the_Butcher (14:22:11) :
cotwome (12:48:58) :
Earth during the Miocene:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/20moll.jpg
How come the Sea levels are the same from today even though there’s almost no Ice in the antarctic? (based on that image.)”
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore is correct, and that all the ice on the planet is shortly going to melt and become water. We can all do that math on that one, and it ends up that the oceans would rise something like 200 feet (to simply round to a nice number).
However, that is assuming that all else remains equal. What all else? All else, like the bottom of the ocean. Because water weighs something, and an extra 200 feet of water is a lot of weight. It is the weight of water that probably causes the bottom of the ocean to be spreading (yes, that is oversimplification, but we are also assuming that Al Gore is correct about something). Add more water to the oceans, hence more weight, and the bottom of the ocean spreads just a little more, becomes somewhat deeper, perhaps being displaced and pushing up the land masses.
I would guess that having more water in the ocean would probably do very little to the majority of coastlines. I would think that, if my scenario is even slightly plausible, what could occur would be a few more earthquakes and volcanoes as everything stabilizes to a new configuration of somewhat deeper oceans, and somewhat higher mountains.
Anyway, that could explain why ancient coastlines are sometimes in the same place as they were many ages ago. The continental shelves are relatively stable.
However, any real geologists that want to tear this apart, please go ahead. I’m just doing a little free-association here.
Joel Shore (09:37:22)
Quite wrong.
It is on the basis of evidence and data that “skeptics” make the case. There’s a very considerable corpus of this. Only I would describe it as impartial rather than skeptical
@ur momisugly Joel Shore (08:26:03) :
Everything Joel has said about the radiative properties of greenhouse gases is 100% true and every freshman textbook says the same thing. It never ceases to amaze me how the effect of greenhouse gases is still being questioned.
There are many questions that have not been answered but the effects of adding CO2 is not one of them. The feedback issue of adding greenhouse gases is where there is debate.
Once again, Joel, I nominate you for the Nobel Patience Prize.
HOT OFF THE PRESSES!
Dr. Warny was kind enough to send me the PDF of this paper. Sorry to disappoint, but the sudden time scale the press release refers to is 50,000 years and the brief warming was 200,000 years.
Joel Shore (09:37:22) : “It is not an ad hom to simply call someone out on continuing to repeat the same arguments and claiming that noone has responded to them when in fact we have.”
“Repeating the same arguments”…? Well if that ain’t the proverbial pot calling the kettle black…
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
So… In summary…
CO2 correlates quite well with temperatures at two times during the Phanerozoic Eon (the last 600 million years or so):
1) The Pleistocene – During which the delta-T always preceded the delta-CO2… A good indication that temperature changes can cause changes in atmospheric CO2.
2) 1977-2003 (maybe as recently as 2005 or even 2007… Although the correlation may have been busted as long ago as 1999).
The correlation fails at all other scales and time frames. That’s a heck of a basis for climate change policy.
So… Since at almost all time scales from “weather” to “geological”, CO2 fails to correlate with temperature… It’s “Plan B” for the Gorebots: Ocean Acidification. Oh… One teeny problem. The Phanerozoic oceanic pH has pretty well been between 7.8 and 8.3 irrespective of atmospheric CO2. The Paleocene-Eocene transition is just about the only documented time when the oceans acidified. Well then! What do the oceans do with CO2? They make limestone, lots and lots of limestone. Even at the very shortest of time scales, the oceans make limestone.
A recent experiment was conducted on fish otoliths (ear bones) to demonstrate the ill effects of ocean acidification. It was assumed that a sudden increase in CO2 would acidify the water and the acid would shrink fish otoliths. Well guess what happened? The otoliths grew; they did not shrink…Did you hear? CO2 makes fish ears bigger
Prior to the experiment, they had assumed that CO2, through ocean acidification, would shrink the otolith. The exact opposite result occurred.
The otoliths grew rather than shrank.
According to the ocean acidification hypothesis, increasing CO2 uptake by the oceans should acidify sea water and destroy calcium carbonate shells and other carbonate structures, like otoliths. The experiment yielded the opposite result. The fish otoliths grew at a faster rate due to the excess CO2.
If the excess CO2 was acidifying the sea water in the experiment, the otoliths should have been reduced in size as had been expected.
The article stated that CO2 was making the seas more acidic. There is no evidence that CO2 has made the seas more acidic. There are assumptions that more CO2 will make the seas more acidic; however there is no evidence that this has actually occurred in the oceans. Some studies suggest that oceanic pH has declined by 0.1 since the 1750’s; but that is well within the 0.5 range of natural pH variation. Over the last 600 million years, the pH of Earth’s oceans appears to have pretty well been in the same range that it is today: 7.8 to 8.3 irrespective of atmospheric CO2 concentrations up to 20 times today’s levels. The experiment tends to suggest that that the excess CO2 was accommodated by increased calcium carbonate production rather than through sea water acidification.
In this particular experiment, they were looking for evidence of oceanic acidification through a reduction of otolith size. The opposite result occurred and they’re still trying to say they found evidence of oceanic acidification. Science doesn’t work that way. Or at least, it’s not supposed to work that way. When results falsify your hypothesis you don’t get to say that the falsification supports the original hypothesis.
Joel Shore (09:37:22) “Actually, you are wrong. The scientific community has accepted the theory of AGW because of the evidence that has been presented.”
The Scientific Community, yes, even they, have demonstrated the phenomenon of “group-think”. Not uncommon for homo sapiens to lapse into that over history.
Has happened (even in the scientific community) before (think the Inquisition), is happening now, and will happen again, unfortunately.
The modern state of such things, unfortunately:
“Consensus” = “Group-Think”
“Peer Review Process” = “Old Boy Network”
So they have “accepted the theory of AGW”…as you say?
Perhaps “they” are in fear of funding drying up if they speak out against it.
If they have “accepted it”….then why are so many of the brightest and best of them putting on the brakes (at the risk of their funding and getting ostracized thanks to politicians like John Holdren), and saying “HOLD ON A MINUTE.”??
And, furthermore, where is the evidence??
Shew forth the evidence, Joel, (real life, hard and fast evidence… not GCM extrapolations)
Show it. Prove it.
The burden of proof is on the AGW church to scientifically prove, once and for all, the tenets of their theology.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Joel Shore (09:37:22) :And, frankly, the “skeptic” side would do much better for itself if, rather than promulgating all sorts of nutty arguments, you guys just focused on issues where there is at least some significant scientific uncertainty, like the cloud feedback and its effect on the climate sensitivity.
What are you talking about?? They are already doing just that. As I said, for the Skeptic side of things (hmm….I thought the word “skeptic” went hand in hand with science, but that is another conversation), but, as I said, for the Skeptic side of things: “Its Science Business as Usual.”
The Spencers, the Svaalgards, the Anna Vs, etc…all are going on about the business of doing what they do best.
The AGW controversy is a side issue (albeit a big one), and it will not derail the Scientific Method completely, because there are plenty of the above individuals and others like them, that will fight to the last day, to prevent it!
To quote the X Files: “The Truth is Out There.”
And it is. We just gotta find it, and it AIN’T easy, any more than the “science” of you-know-what…is “settled.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
And I see I misspelled Leif’s name once again.
Argh. Sorry about that.
Double a in the second a. Double a in the second a. Double a in the second a.
OK I got it! 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
final note to joel shore on pre industrial c02.
that is the measurement from ice cores in vostok. During the period 1810-1957, there exist over 90,000 valid measurements of c02 across the northern hemisphere and india. Often in excess of 500ppm, and most frequently just either side of 400ppm in 1840. Ice data show the same period at 280ppm, in 1840. We can therefore say that real measurements are more accurate than ice core measurements. They are the most minimal proxy, but do, however show a trend.
Your (the AGW) case is no better than taking winter in Antarctica as the starting point then telling us that catastrophe is around the corner as temperatures are rising into summertime, elsewhere than antarctica
Dave Middleton (10:30:19):
“In this particular experiment, they were looking for evidence of oceanic acidification through a reduction of otolith size.”
“The opposite result occurred and they’re still trying to say they found evidence of oceanic acidification.”
“Science doesn’t work that way. Or at least, it’s not supposed to work that way.”
“When results falsify your hypothesis you don’t get to say that the falsification supports the original hypothesis.”
——————————–
This deserves to be repeated and digested again and again…for anyone with a rational mind. I broke the quotes up in hopes that people would take time in re-reading.
On point, Dave!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Janice (09:52:14) :
Earth during the Miocene:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/20moll.jpg
How come the Sea levels are the same from today even though there’s almost no Ice in the antarctic? (based on that image.)”
Sea level was about 130 metres higher than today during this specific period.
Scott A. Mandia (10:18:56) :
@ur momisugly Joel Shore (08:26:03) :
“Everything Joel has said about the radiative properties of greenhouse gases is 100% true and every freshman textbook says the same thing. It never ceases to amaze me how the effect of greenhouse gases is still being questioned.”
In fact, it is some 22% true. It depends on the radiative outgoing. Given that c02 is active in the 14-16 micron length, that means that it can only interfere with heat at this length, which is zeroC-subzero. (eg, the heat radiated by Arctic or Antarctica). At 15C, heat is intercepted at much less than the c02 band -around 9-10 microns, so c02 cannot interfere or absorb it. That is: c02 doesn’t affect outgoing heat from non subzero environments. It is only subzero temps that can be intercepted. IE. the excess heat given off by the Arctic. (If there is any).
Thats the problem with the c02 induced theory of global warming. The only place where the greenhouse effect would take place would be the polar regions, hence why so much AGW is focussed on the Arctic.
Its quite true that watervapour overlaps c02 bands, and absorbs what c02 cannot. So both are dependent on the climate, or the temperature than forcings. I don’t follow the reasoning of c02 being a climate forcing. Its like saying that the loose change in your pocket is more valuable than the wad of notes, or something akin to that. Nay, the few dimes are superior to all other coins of greater value and the wad of notes, because they represent what you have, rather than what the bank holds.
this is the reasoning of AGW> It puts man back at the centre of the universe and makes him guilty for spending a few dimes, because they didn’t go through that bank.
The whole of AGW amplifies these few relatuively inconsequential magnitudes by a factor of 100 at least, to make it potent. The trouble with telling one lie, though, is that of the classic liars syndrome: Tell one major lie and you have to tell thousands more lies to corroborate it.
Actually, its adelusion than a lie, but thats a question of terminology.
“Janice (09:52:14) :
“the_Butcher (14:22:11) :
cotwome (12:48:58) :
Earth during the Miocene:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/20moll.jpg
How come the Sea levels are the same from today even though there’s almost no Ice in the antarctic? (based on that image.)”
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore is correct, and that all the ice on the planet is shortly going to melt and become water. We can all do that math on that one, and it ends up that the oceans would rise something like 200 feet (to simply round to a nice number). ”
apparently, the radius of the earth would increase,a s more water wentr to the equator, and this would slow down teh rotational velocity of the earth which would cause dramatic cooling
P Wilson says:
No. All objects emit radiative energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The reason things stabilize at ambient temperature has to do with the fact that there is no longer a NET exchange of heat between two objects. Both objects are still emitting radiation.
No…Infrared night vision equipment works because people tend to be warmer than inanimate objects at night. For heaven’s sake, here is a quote from a webpage on how night vision works ( http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/nightvision.htm )
I will also give you a quote from the book “Global Warming: The Hard Science” by L.D. Danny Harvey (p.39):
These aren’t theoretical values. They are actual values. (Somewhere else, I forget where, said that the strongest deviation from an emissivity of 1 for terrestrial objects were some desert sands that had an emissivity of as low as 0.7.)
P Wilson says:
No serious scientist takes those measurements seriously. It is easy to have contaminated measurements with a higher level of CO2, which is why Beck’s data shows lots of values close to those of ice core data and then a scattering of values at higher levels. To believe Beck would be to believe that CO2 levels underwent ridiculous oscillations until such time as we started measuring by modern methods and then miraculously it settled down. And, it would mean that essentially all that we understand about the carbon cycle is wrong.
The term is used to describe the oceans becoming more acidic, i.e., less basic.
The issue is one of timescales. Yes, weathering of CaCO3 from rocks will neutralize the acidification but the rate that it can do that is far exceeded by our current rate of acidification of the oceans by our increases in atmospheric CO2. In the past, changes in CO2 were usually less rapid. There was one case which is a close analog to the current case, which is the PETM event about 55 million years ago when there was a significant release of greenhouse gases, the oceans did become more acidic, there was a pronounced warming, and lots of extinctions. It is a hot research area at the moment because of it seems to be the closest analogy to our current predicament.
Scott A. Mandia says:
Thanks, Scott! I wish they gave a Nobel Prize for that! 😉
Dave Middleton says:
That is not true. You just have to look more carefully and control for the effects of other factors. Also, there are a variety of reasons why scientists understand that the CO2 – temperature oscillations during the glacial – interglacial cycles worked in both directions. I.e., changes in temperatures did trigger the changes in CO2 but then the CO2 helped to amplify the temperature change (and to synchronize the change in the two hemispheres…in fact, I believe the latest data shows that the change in CO2 only lagged behind the temperature in one of the hemisphere).
And, the science of how CO2 causes changes in temperature is well-understood even if the issue of feedbacks introduces some uncertainty in the magnitude.
As for ocean acidification, I think the data showing that the oceans have become more acidic is quite robust. It is true that we are still in the relatively early stages of understanding the effects on various marine species…and there may be some “winners” as well as “losers”. But, it would be very optimistic indeed to believe that there would be a net benefit from such a change…and, as I understand it, the PETM evidence so far does not give reason for such optimism.
Joel Shore (13:59:47) :
There was one case which is a close analog to the current case, which is the PETM event about 55 million years ago when there was a significant release of greenhouse gases, the oceans did become more acidic, there was a pronounced warming, and lots of extinctions. It is a hot research area at the moment because of it seems to be the closest analogy to our current predicament.
As ive understood this event to date, is that there were indeed oceanic extinctions(less so terrestrial) but they were in localized areas… which to me dosnt seem consistent with “ocean acidification”(i prefer the term oceanic reduction in alkalinity lol.) And to me seems to indicate that the mechanism of these extinctions is more likly to be caused by a different phenomena. maybe nothing more than dead sea(not technical name) algae blooms(sometimes supersaturating water, followed by aereobic bacterial consumption/(then possibly anaerobic) resulting in no o2 and high( h2s )
But i admit im not that well read on PETM.
Joel. I can see how the S Boltmann constant has been used to adapt itself to the climate, but effectively its a fraudulent use of it. Efectively, its a null hypothesis, pulled out of thin air. If it were a correct hypothesis, blackbody objects, trees, asphalt etc would be emitting more radiation than human bodies at night, beause they received more exterior radiation. (I presume the S Boltmann equation is how NASA defined outgoing radiation as 41% of the total.) In reality, that is a mathematical equation and not a physical one. If it were 41% then humans wouldn’t be detectable, as everything terrestrial would be throwing the same light. As this is clearly not happening, we can conclude that re-radiation is significantly below the 41%. In fact it is 0-1%,
so I quote:
There is supposedly an equation which will show how much infrared radiation is being given off by matter at any temperature, but it is too absurd to be used. It’s the Stephan-Boltzmann Constant.
It shows 459 watts per square meter being given off at room temperature of 27°C. That’s almost five 100 watt bulbs from half of a table top. Night vision equipment shows it isn’t happening.
The Stephan-Boltzmann constant is this:
5.67051 x 10-8 x K4
This result is the number of watts per square meter of infrared radiation supposedly given off by matter at a temperature represented by K (degrees Kelvin, which is 273 + °C).
For exactness, this calculation must include the emissivity, which means percent radiation which is blocked due to such things as reflection. But for nonmetalic surfaces, the emissivity is around 90-95%, which means it can be ignored for the rough estimates of nonmetals.
At a normal temperature of 27°C (80°F), the calculated result without emissivity is 459 W/m2.
At the assumed average temperature of the earth (15°C, 59°F), it’s 390 W/m2.
At the freezing temperature of water (0°C, 32°F), it’s 315 W/m2.
On a hot day of 37°C (98°F), it’s 524 W/m2.
Normal temperature matter is not giving off that much infrared radiation. Virtually everything in physics is in error, unless someone gets the error corrected, which requires a lot more accountability than often exists.
If freezing water were emitting and absorbing the heat of three 100 watt light bulbs per square meter, the heat would interfere with the freezing process. In some environments, water would freeze at 40°F, and elsewhere, it would freeze at 25°F depending upon how much environmental radiation there was at that location. The stability of the freezing temperature of water shows that there is not a significant amount of radiation being emitted and absorbed at that temperature. NOTE: 41% of 1366 watts per square meter is far greater than that of a living body.
no matter how equations are pulled out of thin air, they don’t apply, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics operates. That is: objects giving off radiation are losing heat, and accept radiation when they are colder than the ambient temperature.
Picture a poker pulled out of a fire. its hotter than the air, and heats the air around it, whilst losing temperature. Eventually both reach the same temperature: the ambient temperature at which point the poker gives off no heat. Air has a very low heat capacity so doesn’t add heat effectively. (which is why animals give off more heat than the earth)
so you are quite wrong
i just noticed your isotope as ameasure of how much c02 is anthropogenic. In fact it has been established
Proof from isotopic mass balance
The calculations confirm that maximum 4% (14 GT C) of the air CO2 has anthropogenic origin; 96% is indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel (natural marine and juvenile) sources. by the methods you propose. (Segalstad et al).
Obviously, that measn that the increase in c02 over the last 100 years is not anthropogenic.
Finally, oceanic ph, biology and chemistry confirm that acidification is not the case, and that oceans are an infinite buffer to carbon dioxide.
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Tom_Segalstad.ppt
P Wilson says:
I just did a rough order-of-magnitude calculation and got the result being that the slowing in rotational velocity would add about a second onto a day. How exactly would this “cause dramatic cooling”?
I agree that the science of c02 change in relation to temperature is well understood. (I’ve studied it) spectroscopy is quite interesting in fact. Even Mr Angstrom pu the theories of Keeling and Arrhenius to the test by putting as much c02 as to be found in the atmosphere in a vessell. He found that the amount of radiation getting through didn’t change on doubling or halving the quantities of c02.
Nothing about the properties of c02 have changed since Angstrom’s day. It is only when a closed vessell filled with 100% c02 is heated from the same source as another that contains normal air that the rate of temperature decrease is lengthened in the c02 vessel (closed to convection)