How you were swindled from the truth - the great global warming swindle lies debunked for good

And the winner of the debate is ....


Melatonin!


Seriously, anyone with a brain for themselves and can think ... without watching videos or reading reports can figure out that burning coal, gas, diesel, and all other sorts of things creates exhaust ... it has been taught in PUBLIC schools what ghg is and does ... you would have to be a fool not to see any coincidence ... or on a payroll to not see it. It is funny how money or ignorance can influence people to believe certain ways.

Methane ... ghg ... the argument fails because, ghg is a ghg, by any other name is still stinks.

Hey, let me say this, I want to save the environment, for the future of YOUR grandchildren. I don't have kids. My house will be worth millions if the sea level rises 40-60 ft ... I will have coastal property. Defy me by cleaning up your act and make sure I don't become rich! hehe, how is that for motivation!

ok, now let's get to the logic of not conserving, not cleaning, and actively polluting. Why would you support this?

Do you want me to dump my garbage in your yard? Do you want me to come over with friends and smoke cigars in your house? Why not ... it won't immediately kill you or your family.

Being responsible citizens of earth ... we should keep the only planet we have clean. Why throw trash out the window when you can throw it in a garbage pail ... so ... why drive a truck/suv/H1-2/V8 to go back and forth to work, when you could have something that gets 50 mpg has an SULEV rating or better for pollution (saves money at the pump ... amazing how fast an extra 20-30 mpg will add up, I fill up once ever few months on gas now, compared to twice a week before), why not convert power plants from coal to clean technology, why allow factories to emit waste that we all have to breath and drink, or pay to clean up, why continue to contribute to turning the once beautiful planet into a toxic waste dump ... because doing the responsible thing is inconvenient? How petty and childish is that!

Let's say you don't believe global warming exists. How much harm does it do to take the precaution in case you wrong VS. how much harm you cause by not, if you are wrong. It is like playing Russian roulette. The bullet 'might' not be in this chamber, so I will pull the trigger ... but you aren't pointing it at yourself, you are pointing it at your family, your future generations, the rest of the planet and life on it. The risk is too grand, and you are foolish to take it irrespective of the consequences it has on others. In fact, if proven to be true, you should be held and punished for criminally negligent manslaughter on the mass of millions to billions that may die due to rising coastal areas if Greenland does melt ... and all other ecological related deaths, if you are just simply mistaken about something many scientist have based their life upon ...

don't get me wrong, most science, I scoff at ... dating, and all that mess, I don't necessarily believe. I can tell you this. I have lived in the same city my whole life, I KNOW it is hotter. I KNOW the weather patterns are significantly different. I have years of personal experience in the same area. Deny what you wish, it is your opinion. Just don't make your grandchildren suffer because of your laziness or lack of foresight.

It doesn't take much effort to conserve and be cleaner. To not do so, well, I guess you wouldn't prepare for anything ... not even a hurricane, right? Since, it is not ever 100% predictable the path it will take ... no need to board up windows, evacuate, stock up on supplies ... it may turn away. I know I it has happened to me numerous times over the years. In fact, it is quite fun to watch and experience a hurricane of moderate magnitude ... as long as it doesn't knock out power, or only for a couple hours. But, a few years ago, when we had 3 hit within about a month, with the last one knocking power out for over a week ... it gives you a sense, even if it isn't probable, it is better to prepare and do what you can, just in case, than to naysay it to no end and have it smack you in the face when it is too late. I still enjoy hurricanes. The wind, the cool air compared to the heat of the normal day, watching rain go sideways ... though I know if a 4+ is coming, I am outta here, 3's are tolerable usually here ... a tropical storm is child's play ... our thunderstorms have more gusto (lightning and similarly heavy rains).

If you want to say Gore was over-stressing a point ... it is because he is passionate and cares about what he believes in.

I guess you could say the same for Bush and his convictions, right?

I thought you could use a break between your bickering, feel free to yell at me, I am all over the board and will probably get back to it once you cool down and forget. I just think people take everything way too personal and serious here, and don't think of the common sense aspect ... why I tried to relate doing something for global warming now similar to preparing for an emergency ... whether it is a real threat or not, doing what you can is better than plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and We should always stop and weight the consequences of inaction vs action ... I would rather err on the side of caution than be wrong and sign my own life away.

Originally posted by Muaddib
And a gradual Global Warming event has also been suggested... Check again the link I gave.

You're telling me something I already know. Volcanic activity is suggested as one cause of this.

I don't see why you are bothering here. This was only a proposed triggering mechanism for oceanic influences, the PETM was a GHG mediated event.

WOW....some people really and for some reason become blind when they are shown evidence to contradict their claims...

I already gave one example that it took nearly 10,000 years for the warming to occur during the PETM, here is another...

I'm hoping we have wires crossed here. It took 10,000 years for a rise of 10'C to happen.

you said:

"Err, CO2 remains in the atmosphere at a rate of from around 50-100 years...yet it took nearly 10,000 years for CO2 levels to cause the warming during the PETM?...."

No, it took 10,000 years for the peak increase in temperatures to be reached. The GHGs from the clathrates would have caused warming from the release until reaching a peak after 10,000 years, which was maintained for another 100,000 or so.

Really?...well, you need to present proof to that claim of yours...

I could find better, but I'm fast losing the will to live...

by relating the thickness of the clay layer to the rate of accumulation of marine sediment, Zachos estimated that it took 100,000 years after the PETM for carbon dioxide levels in the air and water to return to normal. This finding is consistent with what geochemists have predicted using models of how the global carbon cycle will respond to carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

www.terradaily.com...

100,000 years for CO2 levels to return to normal.

I have. they state that even though they already did corrections to the data, they were still wrong when extrapolating the data.... as i was saying, to me it sounds more like someone really quickly pulled some strings to dismiss this research.

Yeah, the same researchers who published the original study, pulled some strings to dismiss their own research...

[edit on 9-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

You're telling me something I already know. Volcanic activity is suggested as one cause of this.

The fact is that noone knows exactly what triggered the event...yet you want to claim it was GHGs....

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't see why you are bothering here. This was only a proposed triggering mechanism for oceanic influences, the PETM was a GHG mediated event.

I want to make a point that there is no proof at all that CO2 causes the warming you and some others claim it does... The climate influences CO2 levels, CO2 levels do cause some warming but not to the levels some claim it does.

For example, in the last 15,000 years the Earth has had about 13 or 14 Climate Changes, from colder climate to warmer climate, to colder climate again, and so on...yet CO2 levels have remained pretty much stable...

Even when we look at the past 1,000 years we see the same trend, so CO2 does not drive the climate, the climate drives CO2 levels.

The following is a good presentation of what I am talking about.

It is a powerpoint presentation.

gsa.confex.com...

Originally posted by melatonin
.............
No, it took 10,000 years for the peak increase in temperatures to be reached. The GHGs from the clathrates would have caused warming from the release until reaching a peak after 10,000 years, which was maintained for another 100,000 or so.

It took 10,000 years for temperatures to slowly raise to 9F - 10F. During other times CO2 levels remained higher than they are now, but temperatures instead dropped to almost the same level as now as during the middle of the Ordovician.

The Geological record clearly shows that CO2 does not drive the climate.

Originally posted by melatonin
I could find better, but I'm fast losing the will to live...

Hey, that's good news, one less person emitting CO2, you should be happy.

Originally posted by melatonin
100,000 years for CO2 levels to return to normal.

And several times in the past have CO2 levels remained higher than they are today and temperatures dropped, with some fluctuations, for tens of thousands of years....

Again, CO2 does not drive the climate...

Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, the same researchers who published the original study, pulled some strings to dismiss their own research...

No, it's more like someone called those researchers and asked them if they wanted to continue getting their funds, if they did like to continue getting their funds then they better put some doubts to their findings...

Who knows, but i find it extremely extrange that for a research that destroys the claim of AGW beig the cause of the current warming, immediately and without much wait another report claims it was mostly an error with extrapolating the data from different equipment...


Yet when Mann presented his data in 98, it was immediately accepted, and neither the IPCC nor the "scientific concensus" doubted it... the same goes for any data and research that blames mankind for global warming....such research is immediately accepted without any doubts...yet they are proven wrong time and again as for example, your claim, and that of Mann and associates that the RWP, the MWP and the LIA were not global events, or that the RWP or the MWP were not warmer than today, even though research from all over the world disproves such claims.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The fact is that noone knows exactly what triggered the event...yet you want to claim it was GHGs....

Oh, jeez. Listen, this whole thing was focusing on the fact that CO2 does not always lag temperature increases. The PETM was most likely a result of a massive release of clathrates that resulted in a large increase in temperatures.

There was no lag.

Clathrates were released which almost immediately began oxidation to CO2. Thus, CO2 increased as well. Concurrent increases in temperature resulted. The temperature increase of the PETM was GHG-mediated.

No lag.

Same goes for other periods in the geological past.

The Geological record clearly shows that CO2 does not drive the climate.

Take that up with one of the foremost researchers in the field - Robert Berner.

Originally posted by melatonin
100,000 years for CO2 levels to return to normal.

And several times in the past have CO2 levels remained higher than they are today and temperatures dropped, with some fluctuations, for tens of thousands of years....

What the hell does that have to do with the fact the CO2 remained in the atmosphere for 100,000 years, maintaining the warm period of the PETM?

No, it's more like someone called those researchers and asked them if they wanted to continue getting their funds, if they did like to continue getting their funds then they better put some doubts to their findings...

Who knows, but i find it extremely extrange that for a research that destroys the claim of AGW beig the cause of the current warming, immediately and without much wait another report claims it was mostly an error with extrapolating the data from different equipment...

Yeah, of course, had nothing to do with the faulty data...

Muaddib, this has happened before, deniers jumping the gun from very new sources of data - the satellite data. Here, again, initial data was wrong about there being no tropospheric warming. So, when the systematic biases were corrected, the data was consistent with expectations and observations.

No-one can force the authors to do this stuff, they are primary researchers using this new method. They just have some integrity and intellectual honesty, a thing I'm sure you have difficulty understanding.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Oh, jeez. Listen, this whole thing was focusing on the fact that CO2 does not always lag temperature increases. The PETM was most likely a result of a massive release of clathrates that resulted in a large increase in temperatures.

There was no lag.

Oh jeez...I guess you need a reminder of some facts there melatonin...

Our reconstruction indicates that CO2 remained between 300 and 450 parts per million by volume for these intervals with the exception of a single high estimate near the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. These results
suggest that factors in addition to CO2 are required to explain these past
intervals of global warmth.

ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...

First of all during the PETM even after CO2 levels and methane levels went down, temperatures didn't change dramatically for a few million years, and CO2 levels went as low as 300 ppm, which is less than it is now, yet temperatures were 9F - 10F for a few million years later, with some fluctuations like it always does....

Originally posted by melatonin
Clathrates were released which almost immediately began oxidation to CO2. Thus, CO2 increased as well. Concurrent increases in temperature resulted. The temperature increase of the PETM was GHG-mediated.

No lag.

They were released by a triggering effect which could have been an ongoing gradual global warming effect....

Originally posted by melatonin
Same goes for other periods in the geological past.

Wrong, during other periods in the geological past CO2 levels changed in maost instances irrespective of temperature changes...

Again, a graph which although it has some gaps, shows that temperatures can change irrespective of CO2 level changes in the atmosphere...



Why was it that for example during the late Ordovician, the glaciation event was not stopped by high levels of CO2, when such levels were from 10 to 12 times higher than today?....

So what CO2 brings global warming only sometimes and other times it doesn't?.....

Originally posted by melatonin
Take that up with one of the foremost researchers in the field - Robert Berner.

I take that with many other "foremost researchers in the field" who disagree with Berner...such as Claude Allegre...

Originally posted by melatonin

What the hell does that have to do with the fact the CO2 remained in the atmosphere for 100,000 years, maintaining the warm period of the PETM?

The simple fact that CO2 levels do not drive the climate....the climate drives CO2 levels.

Originally posted by melatonin
No-one can force the authors to do this stuff, they are primary researchers using this new method. They just have some integrity and intellectual honesty, a thing I'm sure you have difficulty understanding.

I know more about integrity and honesty more than you will ever understand.



[edit on 9-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
And the winner of the debate is ....


Melatonin!

Wow that sure does it....

The proof that melatonin is right.....

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Seriously, anyone with a brain for themselves and can think ... without watching videos or reading reports can figure out that burning coal, gas, diesel, and all other sorts of things creates exhaust ... it has been taught in PUBLIC schools what ghg is and does ... you would have to be a fool not to see any coincidence ... or on a payroll to not see it. It is funny how money or ignorance can influence people to believe certain ways.

Wow, well that certainly proves you are either a kid or an environlunatic, or worse, both...

People can differ on opinion than you or anyone else kid....they don't have to be paid off...and please don't talk about ignorance when it looks like you reek of it...

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
ok, now let's get to the logic of not conserving, not cleaning, and actively polluting. Why would you support this?

Do you want me to dump my garbage in your yard? Do you want me to come over with friends and smoke cigars in your house? Why not ... it won't immediately kill you or your family.

What in the world?.... SImply because CO2 is not a pollutant.... CO2 is actually needed as much as water or oxygen is for the ecosystem of this planet to exist...and the Earth has been much greener with much higher levels of CO2, and animal life also has existed with higher levels of CO2....

In order for CO2 levels to be fatal it would have to exist at around 15% of all gases in the atmosphere, and us humans, nor even nature is ever going to get CO2 levels that high... The highest CO2 levels have been is 0.7% of all gases in the atmosphere, and in order for the Earth to reach that level it would take hundreds of thousands of years of human activity releasing CO2....

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Being responsible citizens of earth ... we should keep the only planet we have clean. Why throw trash out the window when you can throw it in a garbage pail ... so ... why drive a truck/suv/H1-2/V8 to go back and forth to work, when you could have something that gets 50 mpg has an SULEV rating or better for pollution (saves money at the pump

Err....because not everyone lives in a city with well paved streets... Many people live in mountains and close to mountains, or their jobs require them to carry large amounts of cargo...

Again, the world might appear easy to a teenager, and all problems might appear to be easy to solve, but it isn't that easy.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin
Support it. Or give it up.

If you are claiming that Gore says that CO2 drives temperatures during the line graph part of his talk, support it. The quote I provided is from that exact section, it is actually from just before he jumps on the ACME Goreliftomater, after that he just shows where CO2 will be in the near future.

So are you honestly proclaiming that Gore wasn't trying to give the impression that -in that 650,000 year graph- the CO2 WASN'T what DROVE that temperature all throughout???? Furthermore, that the Gore-projected CO2 line graph won't correlate with an identical temperature spike?

If so I can no longer take much of anything you say seriously, because clearly you live in a world of biased induced self-deceit that has little difference from that of a Bush worshipper. In this case I will look thru your data but as far as your opinion is concerned I might as well ask Glenn Beck if Bush and the War on Terror are Holy.
Check this out, this would also apply to polarized social group complexes beyond politics:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

The quote from the Royer et al. 2001 article (your link is nuked as well), does not suggest the PETM did not show a large increase in temperatures that was caused by GHGs. In the same paper they say:

our reconstructed CO2 increase (500 ppmv) is consistent with a release of 2522 Gt of methane-derived carbon, a value close to the estimate (2600 Gt C) calculated to account for the marine carbon isotopic excursion using methane as the carbon source

Royer et al., 2001, Science, Vol. 292, p 2310 - 2313

I bet you didn't even realise that is a Berner lab article , heh

Originally posted by Muaddib
Again, a graph which although it has some gaps, shows that temperatures can change irrespective of CO2 level changes in the atmosphere...

Why was it that for example during the late Ordovician, the glaciation event was not stopped by high levels of CO2, when such levels were from 10 to 12 times higher than today?....

The CO2 record compares
predictably with the glacial record, with low values (1000 ppm) at all other times. The
late Ordovician (~440 Ma) represents the only interval during
which glacial conditions apparently coexisted with a CO2-rich
atmosphere. Critically, though, widespread ice sheets likely
lasted

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So are you honestly proclaiming that Gore wasn't trying to give the impression that -in that 650,000 year graph- the CO2 WASN'T what DROVE that temperature all throughout???? Furthermore, that the Gore-projected CO2 line graph won't correlate with an identical temperature spike?

Of course it correlates. Impressions, smeshions. All in the mind of the beholder. Maybe it is because I already knew that orbital variations drive ice-age cycles. But he never at one point said that CO2 did.

He said that one relationship was most important. He said that CO2 is highly related with the ice-age cycles. He said exactly what GHGs do, he said it was very complicated, i.e. not simple:

"the relationship is actually very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others. And that is when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperatures get warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside"

CO2 is a GHG and will therefore lead to increases in temperature, but again, not just through the action of CO2 directly. Positive feedback systems will act.

The direct action of GHGs account for a large proportion of the ice-age climate change. But it is not the only factor, although that is very complicated for some...

You know I've already said that Gore overstated certian aspects of the science, isn't that enough for your Gore as propagandist tirade?

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
.................
There was no lag.

Clathrates were released which almost immediately began oxidation to CO2. Thus, CO2 increased as well. Concurrent increases in temperature resulted. The temperature increase of the PETM was GHG-mediated.

No lag.
...................

Wrong... Melatonin again with his disinformation campaign...

Normally "low" levels of methane in the atmosphere take about 10 years to oxidize into CO2, but the larger the levels of methane in the atmosphere, the longer it takes for oxidation to occur.

What would be the consequences of such a large emission of methane into the atmosphere? At present, methane has a residence time of about 10 years before it is oxidized to carbon dioxide. However, the chemistry of this process is highly non-linear, and as emissions increase, the capacity of the atmosphere to deal with the excess methane decreases and the residence time lengthens. This can lead to quite large increases in the methane concentration. This matters because molecule for molecule, methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The climate consequences depend very strongly on exactly how long the extra methane hangs around.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

BTW, another interesting piece of information that melatonin is trying to hide is found in that same article i gave above.

The change at the PETM was so large that it would have required a decrease in biological activity equivalent to roughly three times the total present-day terrestrial biosphere. In other words, if all of the terrestrial carbon today (in forests, animals, soils, etc.) were converted to carbon dioxide and returned to the global inorganic carbon pool, the change in the global carbon isotopic ratio would only be a third as big as that observed during the PETM! However, no such event is seen at the PETM, and thus another source for very "light" carbon must be found.

Excerpted from above link.

I am not the one trying to obfuscate the issue... There is no way to use the PETM as an example of what could happen due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or even an increase of natural CO2 emisisons might do, and we still don't know exactly what triggered the PETM.

The article I excerpted gives some more insightful information.

We found that for some scenarios, the methane levels can stay high enough and remain long enough to play the dominant role in the subsequent climate warming. The temperature changes are close enough to those observed through the PETM to support both the hypothesized scenario and our modelling efforts. While there are huge uncertainties in almost every aspect of this study, this research shows that we can "connect the dots" from a methane hydrate forcing to the observed global warming.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin
...............
I also see a nice period in that graph of Berner's CO2 data where it precedes a warming event during the Permian that leads to the Permian Triassic boundary.

LOL.... i think melatonin is trying to hoax some members into believing him...yeah, it is true in that period you talk about CO2 leads warming... by a few million years.....

Originally posted by melatonin
But I can see you're desperate to cloud the issue here. The PETM carbon release lead to concurrent large temperature rises. No lag. It is accepted that the PETM was a result of a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere.

Me? naa, i am not the one claiming the PETM warming event was caused by CO2...it was a large release of methane, which was triggered by some unknown event...

Originally posted by melatonin
You even admitted as much it earlier, but thought that because it was methane, then CO2 was not involved.

Your chemistry sucks.

LOL, it is pretty clear whose "chemistry sucks"... you were the one claiming methane would "immediately" oxidize into CO2...and i don't even know what you are talking about now that I admitted as much earlier.....

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wrong... Melatonin again with his disinformation campaign...

Normally "low" levels of methane in the atmosphere take about 10 years to oxidize into CO2, but the larger the levels of methane the longer it takes for oxidation to occur.

I assume you think that methane sits in the atmosphere for 10 years. Then at ten years, oxidises to CO2.

Heh.

Now I do know your chemistry sucks.

And I can't believe you are using Gavin Schmidt's research, do you even know who he is?

Response: Your conclusions are based upon fundamentally flawed premises. i) we do not think GW is caused by greenhouse gas increases simply because current changes are unusual, ii) there are plenty of times in the past when CO2 has driven warming - the PETM, the Quaternary ice ages as a whole, the Cretaceous, etc. iii) there are multiple ways to determine climate sensitivity: www.realclimate.org... - and they all give pretty much the same answer. - gavin]

linky

I am not the one trying to obfuscate the issue... There is no way to use the PETM as an example of what could happen due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Um, yeah, a large emission of GHGs over 10,000 years causing a several 'C rise in the past , has absolutely no relevance to a the current period when we are releasing GHGs at an even faster rate and could reach a similar level of GtC release in a couple of hundred years.

Are you for real? Or some denial-bot?

And, I'll repeat what I said earlier. A clathrate release is one hypothesis for the carbon source, volcanoes are another. We also don't just have one period of such an effect, i.e. a concurrent increase in CO2 and temps, but a few.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

I assume you think that methane sits in the atmosphere for 10 years. Then at ten years, oxidises to CO2.

Heh.

Now I do know your chemistry sucks.

LOL, claims by melatonin with more lies and obfuscation...

AGAIN, from the article I linked from NASA...

At present, methane has a residence time of about 10 years before it is oxidized to carbon dioxide.

....

That same article also states the higher levels of methane the longer it takes for methane to oxidize into CO2.....

Originally posted by melatonin
www.realclimate.org... - and they all give pretty much the same answer. - gavin]

LOL... melatonin again linking to a site where Michael Mann is one of the directors, the same Mann who tried to bury the RWP, the MWP and the LIA and tried to claim with some associates were not global events....and then he claims he doesn't link to Mann's claims much.....

Originally posted by melatonin
Um, yeah, a large emission of GHGs over 10,000 years causing a several 'C rise in the past , has absolutely no relevance to a the current period when we are releasing GHGs at an even faster rate and could reach a similar level of GtC release in a couple of hundred years.

Are you for real? Or some denial-bot?

LOL... melatonin is surely working overtime to obfuscate the issue even more....the data seems to point to the fact that it was the methane which produced the warming, not the CO2....

Let's extract some more real information instead of the disinformation melatonin is trying to spread...

Volcanos are another source of light carbon as carbon dioxide gas within eruptions. But this source would also imply an enormous, and highly unlikely, amount of volcanism to match the observations. In fact, only one source of carbon that is isotopically light and available in large enough quantities has been pinpointed so far, this is the reservoir of methane hydrate deposits (Figure 2) buried on the continental shelves of the oceans (Figure 3).

www.giss.nasa.gov...

The evidence does not support melatonin's claims...

You are trying to hide the fact that it was large amounts of methane which caused that event, which was triggered by some other event we do not know yet...

The PETM has no relevance whatsoever with the current claim that "anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming"... Methane levels at the present have been stable for what ten years?...and they are nowhere near to the levels they were during the PETM....

Originally posted by melatonin
And, I'll repeat what I said earlier. A clathrate release is one hypothesis for the carbon source, volcanoes are another. We also don't just have one period of such an effect, i.e. a concurrent increase in CO2 and temps, but a few.

You can repeat your false claims all you want... the data suggests that the release was large amounts of methane, and it was this methane which caused the warming, not CO2.


[edit on 10-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
LOL, claims by melatonin with more lies and obfuscation...

AGAIN, from the article I linked from NASA...

That's not how chemical reactions work. But why is it worth my bother even trying to explain to to you?

CH4 wouldn't just sit in the atmosphere for 10 years then suddenly react. The 10 years is the 'atmospheric lifetime' of methane. That is a particular defined concept. Methane doesn't sit for 10 years before oxidising. It's like a half-life measurement in radioactivity. C-14 doesn't wait 5,700 years before decaying by half. It gradually decays, and by 5,700 years, half remains.

LOL... melatonin again linking to a site where Michael Mann is one of the directors, the same Mann who tried to bury the RWP, the MWP and the LIA and tried to claim with some associates were not global events....and then he claims he doesn't link to Mann's claims much.....

Gavin Schmidt is one of the lead contributers to realclimate. That was his comment, he is also one of the authors of the paper you are mangling.

All his article is saying is that rather than CO2 being the prime forcing, CH4 could have been the prime forcing in certain scenarios of a clathrate release. He doesn't say that CO2 was not a forcing.

LOL... melatonin is surely working overtime to obfuscate the issue even more....the data seems to point to the fact that it was the methane which produced the warming, not the CO2....

Let's extract some more real information instead of the disinformation melatonin is trying to spread...

No, it was always going to be a bit of both if clathrates are the cause. As the paper I used earlier said, methane undergoes a near-immediate oxidation to CO2. Thus, the forcing during the PETM would be due to CH4 and CO2. Even Gavin's paper accepts this.

The evidence does not support melatonin's claims...

Oh, jeez. It is one hypothesis. I'm sorry you have an issue with that, but it is...

Science 27 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5824, pp. 587 - 589
DOI: 10.1126/science.1135274
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Opening of the Northeast Atlantic

Michael Storey,1 Robert A. Duncan,2 Carl C. Swisher, III3

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) has been attributed to a sudden release of carbon dioxide and/or methane. 40Ar/39Ar age determinations show that the Danish Ash-17 deposit, which overlies the PETM by about 450,000 years in the Atlantic, and the Skraenterne Formation Tuff, representing the end of 1 ± 0.5 million years of massive volcanism in East Greenland, are coeval. The relative age of Danish Ash-17 thus places the PETM onset after the beginning of massive flood basalt volcanism at 56.1 ± 0.4 million years ago but within error of the estimated continental breakup time of 55.5 ± 0.3 million years ago, marked by the eruption of mid-ocean ridge basalt–like flows. These correlations support the view that the PETM was triggered by greenhouse gas release during magma interaction with basin-filling carbon-rich sedimentary rocks proximal to the embryonic plate boundary between Greenland and Europe.

Science 27 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5824, p. 527
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5824.527
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

News of the Week
GEOCHEMISTRY:
Humongous Eruptions Linked to Dramatic Environmental Changes
Richard A. Kerr

Scientists have long thought that the gigaton burst of greenhouse gas--carbon dioxide or methane--that marked the beginning of the PETM must be linked to the 5 million to 10 million cubic kilometers of erupted North Atlantic magma, if only because they happened at about the same time. But having to date the two events in different records using different techniques made the case less than convincing. So Storey and his colleagues dated more rocks from the LIP using the argon-argon technique based on the radioactive decay of potassium-40. Combined with previously published data, the dating places one of the largest surges of magma of the past quarter-billion years at 56.1 ± 0.5 million years ago.

OK, CO2 or methane.

ABSTRACT

Two recently drilled Caribbean sites contain expanded sedimentary records of the late Paleocene thermal maximum, a dramatic global warming event that occurred at ca. 55 Ma. The records document significant environmental changes, including deep-water oxygen deficiency and a mass extinction of deep-sea fauna, intertwined with evidence for a major episode of explosive volcanism. We postulate that this volcanism initiated a reordering of ocean circulation that resulted in rapid global warming and dramatic changes in the Earth’s environment.

....

Effusive eruptions, such as those in the North
Atlantic igneous province, have the potential to
cause long-term warming because they commonly
involve voluminous CO2 degassing.
Modern-day volcanic activity has not resulted in
warming because the huge atmospheric-oceanicterrestrial
CO2 reservoir negates the potential
radiative greenhouse effect of degassed CO2 (e.g.,
Varekamp et al., 1992). However, North Atlantic
igneous province activity probably had a significant
effect on late Paleocene climate because of
the immense scale—yet pulsed nature—of the
eruptions (e.g., Eldholm and Thomas, 1993). The
presumably huge volume of CO2 emission and
the reduced CO2 solubility in the warm, late Paleocene
oceans may have enhanced accumulation in
the atmosphere (e.g., Owen and Rea, 1985),
creating the observed pre–LPTM warming.

Bralower et al., Geology, 1997, 25, 963+

Science 8 December 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5805, pp. 1556 - 1557
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136110
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
ATMOSPHERE:
An Ancient Carbon Mystery
Mark Pagani, Ken Caldeira, David Archer, James C. Zachos*
About 55 million years ago, Earth experienced a period of global warming that lasted ~170,000 years (1). This climate event--the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)--may be the best ancient analog for future increases in atmospheric CO2. But how well do we understand this event?

Temperature records from the tropics to the poles indicate that at the start of the PETM, global temperatures increased by at least 5°C in less than 10,000 years (2). The rise in surface temperature was associated with changes in the global hydrological cycle (3) and a large decrease in the 13C/12C ratio of marine (4) and terrestrial carbonates (5) and of organic carbon (3). This carbon isotopic excursion indicates that changes in the global carbon cycle were linked to global warming.

Furthermore, the ocean's carbonate compensation depth--the depth above which carbonate accumulates on the sea floor--rose substantially at the start of the carbon isotope excursion (5). This change is consistent with ocean acidification associated with a rapid influx of CO2. Although the change in ocean chemistry was not uniform throughout the ocean (6, 7), the confluence of isotopic and sedimentological data supports the conclusion that atmospheric CO2 was the primary greenhouse gas driving the PETM. Yet, the source of the CO2 remains a mystery.

Biological responses to global warming during the PETM include changes in the ecology of marine organisms, a mass extinction of benthic foraminifera (4, 8), and a global expansion of subtropical dinoflagellates at the earliest onset of the event (9). Global warming also coincides with the appearance of modern orders of mammals (including primates), a transient dwarfing of mammalian species, and a migration of large mammals from Asia to North America (8).

According to one hypothesis, the PETM was caused by the release of ~2000 PgC from the destabilization of methane hydrates (which would subsequently oxidize to form CO2) (10). However, it is unlikely that methane was the sole source of warming. For example, the size of the methane hydrate reservoir at the end of the Paleocene was probably much smaller than it is today (11), and the magnitude of the sustained warming and the change in the carbonate compensation depth are compatible with a much greater mass of carbon than originally estimated (6). To account for larger carbon inputs, other sources have been invoked, including the oxidation of terrestrial (12) and marine (13) organic carbon and/or volcanic outgassing and thermal decomposition of organic matter (14). There is no single satisfactory explanation.

In fact, as you can see it is a well-supported one. There is good evidence that, at the minimum, volcanic CO2 or methane was one of triggers. A massive release of Carbon preceding the PETM event.

As I said, CO2 was not lagging the warming.

All we are absolutely certain of is that a massive influx of carbon into the atmosphere happened during the PETM with an associated rise in temperature. We have good evidence that CO2 from volcanic activity was present, but it doesn't seem sufficient to account for all the warming, thus, clathrate release is proposed to account for the remainder.

You are trying to hide the fact that it was large amounts of methane which caused that event, which was triggered by some other event we do not know yet...

....

I haven't hid it at all. CH4 undergoes a near-immediate oxidation to CO2 in the atmosphere. It was in one of the first quotes I posted.

You don't even see the significance of this do you? You're so wrapped up in your denialism, you fail to see how this affects your normal logical fallacy based on the lag.

So, again, CO2 did not lag the warming during the PETM. And it was a major cause of warming. If clathrates were the cause, then CO2 was also important. Either way, it was a GHG induced warming episode.

Science 29 October 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5697, pp. 821 - 822
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103025
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
PHYSICS:
Ancient Lessons for Our Future Climate
Daniel P. Schrag and Richard B. Alley*

This lesson is supported by an event at the very beginning of the Eocene, 55 million years ago. During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, tropical oceans warmed by 4º to 6ºC and high-latitude oceans by 8º to 10ºC in less than 10,000 years (9). The leading hypothesis for this event involves the release of methane, another powerful greenhouse gas, from the sea floor (12). However, the duration of the climate event--50,000 to 200,000 years in total (9)--suggests that the warming was probably caused mainly by an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rather than methane, due to the short lifetime of methane in the atmosphere.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So are you honestly proclaiming that Gore wasn't trying to give the impression that -in that 650,000 year graph- the CO2 WASN'T what DROVE that temperature all throughout???? Furthermore, that the Gore-projected CO2 line graph won't correlate with an identical temperature spike?

Of course it correlates. Impressions, smeshions. All in the mind of the beholder. Maybe it is because I already knew that orbital variations drive ice-age cycles. But he never at one point said that CO2 did.

Originally said by Al Gore
Did they ever go together? ... most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

Sure, Gore didn't clearly state: THE CO2 IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT DROVE THE TEMP AND THAT'S THAT!, in those words, but that's exactly the impression he was trying to give. And he reiterated the suggestion over and over, for example the Gore-scare-o-scissorlift-o-meter.

Of course there's correlations, but the correlation I was referring to was his suggestion that when the CO2 reaches that 2nd storey projected peak, which I might add is what he implied it WILL be, the temp will drive right up with it.

Looking back, I was quite offended after learning the details on this "complicated" matter. I'll call it Gore's biggest folly, because when I first watched this film I knew little about the issue in general, and he had me sold after watching that. That part of the presentation stuck in my head more than anything else, and this is why you might note me spending so much time on it.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

All you are posting is more theories on what could have happened, which still does not change the facts. The higher the amount of methane in the atmosphere, the longer it takes for methane to oxidize into CO2. Methane does not magically just oxidizes right after it gets in the atmosphere, it takes time, and the amount of methane released into the atmosphere contributes to how fast the oxidation takes place.

Again, for the third time...

We found that for some scenarios, the methane levels can stay high enough and remain long enough to play the dominant role in the subsequent climate warming.

Not only that but as one of the excerpts you gave kindly noted...

Science 29 October 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5697, pp. 821 - 822
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103025
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
PHYSICS:
Ancient Lessons for Our Future Climate
Daniel P. Schrag and Richard B. Alley*

This lesson is supported by an event at the very beginning of the Eocene, 55 million years ago. During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, tropical oceans warmed by 4º to 6ºC and high-latitude oceans by 8º to 10ºC in less than 10,000 years (9).

The PETM event is no way shape or form close to bringing any insights into the current warming we are undergoing.

For all we know a large meteor could have been the trigger of the PETM event...just like the large meteor which crashed on Earth 10 million years before the PETM event.

At the end you can't use the PETM to claim it brings evidence to the current warming, because much of what we think we know are HYPOTHESIS/HYPOTHERICAL/THEORIES.....

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Looking back, I was quite offended after learning the details on this "complicated" matter.

But don't you think that when he said, right at the start, 'that it was complicated, that it wasn't as simple as it was a first glance?

It sort of quite explicitly says so to me.

Originally posted by Muaddib
All you are posting is more theories on what could have happened, which still does not change the facts. The higher the amount of methane in the atmosphere, the longer it takes for methane to oxidize into CO2. Methane does not magically just oxidizes right after it gets in the atmosphere, it takes time, and the amount of methane released into the atmosphere contributes to how fast the oxidation takes place.

OK, I think you need a lesson in kinetics. A phys chem text book should do ya. I'll try though...

Gavin Schmidt is talking about a rate of reaction process. Methane would begin oxidising when it hit the atmosphere. The issue that Gavin is highlighting is that the kinetics of CH4 conversion to CO2 is rate limited by reactants. That is, when methane starts to accumulate in large quantities, it would slow the rate of reaction, as it would depend on the formation of an essential reactant.

That's quite likely. But it doesn't mean that methane would not start converting when initially released. It just means that the CO2 increase would slow with time (i.e. the more methane, the less reactant to enable conversion). Plus, it would all be dependent on the rate at which the methane was released. In his paper he shows a series of scenarios, all contain an input from CO2.

It's a bit like putting a wet ungalvanised iron rod in the air, it will start to oxidise immediately, might take a few days to get a nice coating of rust though. However, if we limit air and water to a few millimoles per day, the reaction will slow, but still progress, entirely dependent on the limited supply of reactants. Lots of iron left, but rusting still prgresses.

This is why Gavin readily accepts that CO2 was an important driver of the PETM, but he also thinks that CH4 may have been the primary driver under certain scenarios.

Further, no matter how much you want to deny it, there is good evidence that volcanic activity was involved. You can throw a comet in if you like, but the evidence for extrusive and intrusive volcanic activity is robust.

As for the insights of the PETM to now. Again, you can hide from it if you like, but we are releasing GHGs faster than during that period. Of course it gives an insight. If we carry on regardless, we will be at PETM levels of CO2 in a few hundred years, rather than 10,000

[edit on 11-8-2007 by melatonin]

Well, I think some people need some tutoring in reading comprehension, but that's something that going back to kindergarden might help...

Let's see again what Schmidt has to say about it..

We found that for some scenarios, the methane levels can stay high enough and remain long enough to play the dominant role in the subsequent climate warming.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by melatonin
As for the insights of the PETM to now. Again, you can hide from it if you like, but we are releasing GHGs faster than during that period. Of course it gives an insight. If we carry on regardless, we will be at PETM levels of CO2 in a few hundred years, rather than 10,000 .

What?.... LOL, and melatonin wants to give classes in chemestry....

The change at the PETM was so large that it would have required a decrease in biological activity equivalent to roughly three times the total present-day terrestrial biosphere. In other words, if all of the terrestrial carbon today (in forests, animals, soils, etc.) were converted to carbon dioxide and returned to the global inorganic carbon pool, the change in the global carbon isotopic ratio would only be a third as big as that observed during the PETM! However, no such event is seen at the PETM, and thus another source for very "light" carbon must be found.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

But melatonin wants to claim we are releasing a far more dangerous GHG than methane, and that we are releasing it much faster than during the PETM?....

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well, I think some people need some tutoring in reading comprehension, but that's something that going back to kindergarden might help...

Let's see again what Schmidt has to say about it..

We found that for some scenarios, the methane levels can stay high enough and remain long enough to play the dominant role in the subsequent climate warming.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Did I say otherwise?

That quote doesn't say that CO2 would play no role. If you actually read the paper it contains the scenarios. All contain an input from CO2.

What?.... LOL, and melatonin wants to give classes in chemestry....

Don't be dense. That quote says nothing about us being unable to reach PETM levels of CO2. It just says that the terrestrial biosphere doesn't contain that much carbon. That's why they have looked for another source of carbon outside the terrestrial biosphere. About 1500GtC according to Gavin, up to 2000GtC in other estimates.

Fossils fuel carbon isn't counted as part of the terrestrial carbon. Well, it wasn't until we started liberating this locked up carbon source. We could conceivably make 800-1000ppm by 2100, emitting around 1500GtC. Estimates of sources of carbon-based fuels suggest we have a lot more to burn past 2100. We only need to double our current output to push up to around 10GtC per year, projections suggest we could hit much higher levels of emissions in this century. To avoid a doubling this century we need to stay below around 700GtC. In the following century we could easily emit another 2000GtC, if we wanted to it.

Just do the maths, muaddib. 2000GtC from clathrates emittted over 10,000 years = 0.5GtC per year. It would have had to have happened within 1000 years to even reach close to our current emission rate (i.e. 5GtC/yr PETM vrs 7GtC/yr now).

Someone get in touch with the US infection control agency, looks like foot in mouth has reached the US...

[edit on 11-8-2007 by melatonin]