Dr. Capell Aris writes:
Dear Mr. Watts,
The UK Geological Society has made a statement about climate change.
This seems to have received very little attention. It’s not a particluarly strong statement, given that it contains the statement:
“During warmings from glacial to interglacial, temperature and CO2 rose together for several thousand years, although the best estimate from the end of the last glacial is that the temperature probably started to rise a few centuries before the CO2 showed any reaction. Palaeoclimatologists think that initial warming driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt eventually caused CO2 to be released from the warming ocean and thus, via positive feedback, to reinforce the temperature rise already in train”
Full statement here:
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html
John B – you must be joking, right ? ! ?
Leland Palmer,
Climate alarmists are wacky enough already without veering off into fantasies involving 90% extermination rates. We’re talking about a minor change in a minor trace gas, from 0.000280 of the atmosphere to 0.000390 of the atmosphere. It’s still a minuscule trace gas, and implying that it may cause mass extinctions is lunatic alarmism, doubled and squared.
My previous post should have been directed at:
Marc says:
June 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm
The solar spectrum only has a very small component in the infra red that would interact with the major greenhouse gas water and the minor greenhouse gas CO2. Marc, you really must study up on radiative physics before posing your questions. There have been numerous post on various climate blogs over the years explaining the radiative physics of the earth’s atmosphere. That is not to say that the functioning of the entire system is well quantified and understood but some of the basic physical principles are well understood. Try scienceofdoom.com if you want to overdose on radiative physics.
The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago and continue today and have nothing to do with CO2, but everything to do with over hunting, over fishing, exotic species introduction, etc. CO2 is the iron pyrite of environmentalism–preventer of all cures. –AGF
Hi Smokey-
Well, nature isn’t wacky, but it is sometimes very strange.
We really could plausibly set off such an extinction event- or worse totally destabilize the system and end up with an atmosphere resembling that of Venus, with temperatures of hundreds of degrees C.
This is the most horrifying scientific paper I have ever read:
atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf
Methane actually depletes concentrations of hydroxyl radical, the chemical species which oxidizes it into CO2, increasing its own lifetime in the atmosphere. Because this is an atmospheric chemistry effect, it can grow much, much faster than logarithmically. The indirect atmospheric chemistry effects that Isaksen talks about make everything much, much worse. And radiative forcing from any greenhouse gas, not just CO2, is multiplied several times by increased water vapor in the atmosphere.
I really, really do hope that you guys know what you are doing, since you seem to be betting all of our futures on your sense of what is or is not ridiculous.
Tilo Reber says:
June 26, 2011 at 11:33 am “…What bothers me about this explanation is that Milankovich is considered to be a weak forcing agent and CO2 is considered to be a strong forcing agent….”
Considered by whom? Milankovich is FIRST order forcing; CO2 is a Fourth order forcing, i.e. nothing much.
Leland Palmer says:
“We really could plausibly set off such an extinction event- or worse totally destabilize the system and end up with an atmosphere resembling that of Venus, with temperatures of hundreds of degrees C.”
And pigs could plausibly fly. You’re scaring yourself with that crazy talk. Stop it. There is nothing unusual happening; everything is well within past parameters. So try to relax, take some deep breaths, and repeat after me: “Serenity now…” Or familiarize yourself with the evil vodak, it works just as well. ☺
crosspatch says:
June 26, 2011 at 1:19 pm “…The cause is something that happens quite suddenly and has dramatic impact and changes things for a very, very long time (100,000 years in the case of a glaciation)….”
Actually, this is a blink of the eye, geologically. There are periods of many tens of millions of years where things climatic apparently were relatively stable (our measuring stick for those times is good, but relatively coarse). Only in the last 40 million years or so do we have a more finely graduated record that we can measure more closely. These do seem to show some sharp, abrupt changes. That cannot relate to greenhouse gases, because – theoretically – they have at least a linear effect on global temperatures (i.e. 1ppm CO2 = .001 degC up or down or whatever). Ergo, something else is at work: albedo changes (clouds +/- something else); solar changes; oceanic changes; or some other major but as yet unrecognized effect.
In all the comments defending the “blocking” action of CO2 (absorption and reemission of radiation), the word “convection” doesn’t appear. Let me fix that:
Does CO2 stifle convection?
“Energy is transferred between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere via conduction, convection, and radiation.”
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_1_1.htm
How does convection affect global temperatures?
Is convection a negative feedback?
A G Foster says:
June 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm
The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago and continue today and have nothing to do with CO2, but everything to do with over hunting, over fishing, exotic species introduction, etc. CO2 is the iron pyrite of environmentalism–preventer of all cures. –AGF
====================
I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Tamino, but….well said.
Until we get to the point where we honestly address the fact that homo sapiens (for all our accomplishments) have opportunistically forced ourselves on the biosphere not unlike fire ants, bermudagrass, and english ivy, we will get nowhere.
But unlike fire ants, bermudagrass, and english ivy, et al, we have evolved consciences and the ability to correct problems…so we are without excuse.
Never before has a species had so much knowledge (and ability) at its fingertips…as ours…to solve problems.
And never before have there been so many distractions….the wild goose chase foolishness of the beneficial trace gas CO2 notwithstanding.
Meanwhile…the dead zones increase in the Gulf….and species disappear.
We need to choose our battles.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leland Palmer says:
June 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm
…”So, my crystal ball is a little cloudy about things that haven’t happened yet and that depend on what we do now in the future,”….
=========
Good God, it is not all about you, get over yourself !!
Nick Stokes says:
June 26, 2011 at 7:00 pm
And the incoming is where the shorter (and more energetic) portion of the spectrum is.
The outgoing is where the longer (and less energetic) portion of the spectrum lies.
The exact formula is E= hc/wavelength
some math yields: incoming peak is .5 x 10^-6 meters.
so E incoming is 1.99×10^-25 joule-meters/.5 x 10^-6 meters
E outgoing peak is 9 x 10^-6 meters
so E outgoing is 1.99×10^-25 joule-meters/9 x 10^-6 meters
Looks to me like incoming is 18 times that of outgoing in terms of energy, all by itself.
Toss in 12 hours of darkness and incoming is 9 times that of outgoing energy.
Earth is not very sensitive to CO2, being that it is at the very lowest part of the outgoing curve, climactic wise.
It would take externally forced changes to really make a difference.
Leland Palmer says:
June 26, 2011 at 7:28 pm “…One funny thing is that this statement leaves out the End Permian mass extinction, also accompanied by carbon isotope signatures which show the injection of several trillion tons of carbon 12 enriched carbon at this time, consistent with a massive destabilization of the methane hydrates at that time….”
Hey, have you got a link or two to that data? Actually, it seems that End Permian was one of the lowest CO2 times in the Paleozoic (along with temperature). Actually, it seems it was about the same as today’s dangerously low CO2 content. Maybe the little varmints froze their as*es off?
Let’s see some good geologic paper links to back up your claim.
Hi Smokey-
Well, I’m sure we can comfortably bet the future of the biosphere on your sense of the ridiculous.
Certainly, if that wacky Isaksen wants to talk about strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to Arctic methane emissions, we should just ignore it.
And we should really, really ignore the strong water vapor feedback to all greenhouse forcing, whether from methane, CO2, increased methane lifetime due to decline in hydroxyl radical, stratospheric water vapor, or tropospheric ozone.
contrary to the global warming theory, infrared ‘back-radiation’ from greenhouse gases has declined over the past 14 years in the US Southern Great Plains in winter, summer, and autumn. If the anthropogenic global warming theory was correct, the infrared ‘back-radiation’ should have instead increased year-round over the past 14 years along with the steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide”……”A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI)…The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”
Hi JimF-
Well, Google it. Your fingers aren’t broken.
Here’s a link to get you started:
webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/Benton2003.pdf
How to kill (almost) all life- the End Permian mass extinction event:
Leland Palmer says:
June 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm “…Leland Palmer says: “…What we do have are carbon isotope signatures showing the input of trillions of tons of C12 enriched carbon into the active carbon cycle, and oxygen isotope signatures showing large amounts of global heating at that time. There is also, of course, evidence of anoxic conditions on the floors of the oceans, including vast deposits of petroleum, left over from dead creatures preserved by low oxygen conditions, during these oceanic anoxic events associated with destabilization of methane hydrates….”
It is true that the Permo-Cretaceous, especially the Cretaceous, generated massive accumulations of kerogenic organic matter, especially in rift basins and restricted seas. This accounts for your “anoxic conditions”. In fact it was one of the most prolific times for life in earth’s history, which suggests, rather than some sort of disaster as you pose it, the conditions were ripe for living things (remember, the dinosaurs ruled the earth during most of this time, about 150 million years).
Further, it was 6 -10 deg.C hotter than today, and the atmospheric CO2 content about 6 times today’s value. However this latter value was a lot less than most of the preceding 450 million years, which saw life burgeon and expand almost magically, although punctuated by glacial eras and unexplained mass extinctions. In conclusion, as speaker for organic life, I declare warmer is better, CO2 helps, and there’s one hell of a lot of things that go into a planet’s climatic condition than one little gas.
Leland Palmer says:
June 26, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Leland: Go “google” yourself (I think you know what I mean). You’re just a slimy little green troll. I, for one, will never respond to your comments again. Goodbye.
Marc says:
June 26, 2011 at 9:27 pm
The decline of the UV portion of the spectrum. during solar minima and into the prolonged portion SC23/SC24 from low to very low solar activity. has led to a subsequent decrease in the most energetic portions of the downwelling radiation. It should follow that outgoing LIR would likewise decrease.
Poor old CO2 ain’t what it used to be. Weak, leaky, and not located in the interception scheme of things to cut the mustard, a victim of Planks Constant.
savethesharks says:
June 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm
A G Foster says:
June 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm
The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago and continue today and have nothing to do with CO2, but everything to do with over hunting, over fishing, exotic species introduction, etc. CO2 is the iron pyrite of environmentalism–preventer of all cures. –AGF
====================
I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Tamino, but….well said.
Until we get to the point where we honestly address the fact that homo sapiens (for all our accomplishments) have opportunistically forced ourselves on the biosphere not unlike fire ants, bermudagrass, and english ivy, we will get nowhere.
But unlike fire ants, bermudagrass, and english ivy, et al, we have evolved consciences and the ability to correct problems…so we are without excuse.
Never before has a species had so much knowledge (and ability) at its fingertips…as ours…to solve problems.
And never before have there been so many distractions….the wild goose chase foolishness of the beneficial trace gas CO2 notwithstanding.
Meanwhile…the dead zones increase in the Gulf….and species disappear.
We need to choose our battles.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
—–
Well Chris, seems you may have a sensible bone in your body after all…
What to make of the UKGS statement? A perfectly true fact, one that contradicts Big Al’s An Inconvenient Toot chart, immediately followed by the obligatory kow-tow to global warming. Nothing less than pathetic.
R. Gates says:
Well Chris, seems you may have a sensible bone in your body after all…
================
You goofball. I have been talking about these from the very VERY beginning.
So….”sensible” from the very beginning. What’s your excuse??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Jim F. “Considered by whom? Milankovich is FIRST order forcing; CO2 is a Fourth order forcing, i.e. nothing much.”
Don’t jump me Jim, I’m on your side. LOL. The idea that Milankovitch is weak and CO2 is strong comes from many warmer sources. Here for example:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=116
My opinion is that the CO2 forcing is also weak. Which is why I asked, how can temperature turn around and go back down while CO2 is still climbing sharply, as is shown in the record.
Apparently R. Gates has simply walked away without trying to answer that question.
R. Gates,
Thank you for an answer, although, simply stated, it’s an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. You say they have used 29 year periods for the base period and they don’t use the same base period for the Persistence of an Anomaly chart as they used for the Anomaly chart and that’s just how they chose to do it. .
My question was, why the short and older base period and I guess you’ve given that your best shot. Now my question is, why two different short base periods? What makes the choice of one base period over the other more meaningful?
Thanks in advance.
R. Gates: “Well Chris, seems you may have a sensible bone in your body after all…”
R., you have been asked several times now how temperature could turn around and go down while CO2 is still climbing. Did I miss your answer? Because the only answer that I saw had to do with what would happen after temperature began a decline. I never saw an answer for how temperature could begin a decline while CO2 was still moving up.