June 1, 2006

News Flash: Catastrophic Global Warming Found - 55 Million Years Ago!

Hatched by Dafydd

New research has found that a scant 55 million years ago, the North Pole quickly developed a climate much like Florida today:

The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say the extraordinary planetwide warm-up called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge. Almost all climate experts agree that the present-day gas buildup is predominantly a result of emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests.

"Almost all climate experts" in this case means all those who agree with the IPCC; climatologists who do not are obviously inexpert, and we want no part of them. Be off with you!

This find poses some serious problems for the globalistas, of course:

  1. Humans did not exist 55 million years ago. And as far as industrialization, not even General Motors had been founded yet. Scientists have no clue how that region of the earth could warm so quickly and so much; but the fact that it did indicates that massive warming can occur entirely naturally.

This implies that we know darned little about the natural cycles that govern mean global temperature (MGT)... which makes cocked hash of the claims of near-certainty by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC, the chaps who gave us the Kyoto Protocol). They don't have any more idea about how climate and MGT change than did the "wet-nosed primates" who lived back then.

  1. Then it got colder again... which implies that what warms up can also cool down.

Hm.

With such massive shifts in temperature occuring far beyond the range of any human-induced changes (real or imaginary), it's hard to take seriously the suggestion that we should bankrupt the world's economy to shave a fraction of one degree off the projected rise in the MGT over the next hundred years.

As could be anticipated, the globaloney lobby has tried to physically wrench these findings to support Kyoto:

Experts not connected with the studies say they support the idea that heat-trapping gases — not slight variations in Earth's orbit — largely determine warming and cooling.

"The new research provides additional important evidence that greenhouse-gas changes controlled much of climate history, which strengthens the argument that greenhouse-gas changes are likely to control much of the climate future," said one such expert, Richard B. Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University.

Perhaps so; but it's turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down....

  1. If some huge emission of greenhouse gases caused this enormous warming, then that means there are natural events (volcanic eruptions, for example) that can release staggeringly huge quantities of carbon and carbonoids, far more than mere human industrialization has released. This certainly implies there can be smaller events that release the amounts we're seeing enter the atmosphere today.

This sounds more and more like nature flexing her glutes and squishing the idea that humans are the big factor in determining climate and temperature around the globe.

Oh, and let's not forget the corollary to 3:

  1. Since the Earth got cool again, that must mean that massive release of greenhouse gas was somehow reabsorbed, removing it from the atmosphere and allowing the earth to cool again. In other words, there exists some natural mechanism to regulate the quantity of greenhouse gases in the air: when the concentration rises above some trigger point, it appears to be "swallowed up" again.

Thus, once again, we're left with the puzzling question of why we need to be so concerned about slight rises in carbonoids or even temperature; nature does a pretty good job of righting things by itself, all without benefit of a PhD, the title of "expert," or even consciousness. Why cripple the economic structure of civilization trying to jump nature's gun?

All of which brings us, topsy-turvy, back to where we began: we don't know anywhere near as much as we sometimes think we do; and in particular, we know very little about what drives climate, weather, temperature, air movement, sea-levels, and large-scale icing.

We need a twenty-year moratorium on "doing" anything about climate. Instead, let's commit vast treasure and human resources to improving our basic scientific understanding of climatology and all that's related. It would make little difference in the projected rise of MGT; we would better be able to decide whether the current rise was natural or anthropogenic; and even if we did decide to "do something," those twenty years would allow us to craft a much more intelligent and effective "thing" to do than striking out blindly today.

There is no significant downside to sentencing globaloney to a "timeout".

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 1, 2006, at the time of 4:52 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/799

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference News Flash: Catastrophic Global Warming Found - 55 Million Years Ago!:

» Politicizing 'An Inconvenient Truth' from All Things Beautiful
Are we too blasée? Do Republicans not care for the environment? Are we placing partisan ideology before the healthy future of our children? These and a flurry of related questions that have been bugging me over the last few days since Vice President A... [Read More]

Tracked on June 1, 2006 8:50 AM

» Climate Scientists Just Don't Know from Sensible Mom
Given this information, the Earth has been in a global cooling cycle for 55 million years. So why does Al Gore have his undies in a wad now that they Earth may be warming a tad? [Read More]

Tracked on June 1, 2006 2:31 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Rick

"This sounds more and more like nature flexing her glutes and squishing the idea that humans are the big factor in determining climate and temperature around the globe."

I completely agree here. Many years ago, and by many I mean something like 20, I recall watching a program on PBS that outlined the "Gaia" hypothesis, or the idea that the earth's ecosystem is a constantly adjusting system. I specifically recall the scientist being interviewed noting that when levels of various gases such as CO2 or O2 change, mechanisms counter the change to restore the proper balance. That is why the atmosphere will never incinerate, for instance, because of too high a level of oxygen.

In any event, I guess this notion of a self-adjusting ecosystem is lost on today's scientists (although some have said that we are changing things too quickly for the ecosystem to adjust). Funny, too, how those who view life as ever changing (i.e., governed by evolution) look at the environment as something that must remain static.

Great posts on this topic....keep 'em coming!

The above hissed in response by: Rick [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 7:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn

Oh Dafydd. Are your really so ignorant that you can't see the evidence is clear. 55 million years ago, the civilization of Atlantis rose up and belched forth the nasty gases. While the good people of the day sttod on the left of the podium and warned of the evil, the evil people of the day stood on the right an scratched themselves. So then Atlantis was destroyed by the rising waters of a just Gia that wiped out all the evil people. The the unicorn fairys came and farted magic rainbows that restored the earth.

So unless you can fart rainbows, you should just shut up and listen to those who have a personal and professional stake in proving a new ice age is coming. No scratch that, that was for the 70's. o, your betters now know that it is a super duper heating that will go on. And if it doesn't occur, it is only because of their tireless efforts to circle the globe in private jets to expound on the evils of using energy.

The above hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 7:20 AM

The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH

I like your idea of the twenty-year pause in global-warming eco-activism to give the science a chance to catch up. It is important that the pause be long enough to exceed the attention span of the political types. If the pause were to be five years then politization of climate science would continue unabated. But with a twenty year pause the political types would wander off to make trouble somewhere else and we could take the italics and scare quotes off ot the word "scientists" when citing articles about climate change. There's a reason that all of Stalin's "plans" had an official five-year duration and today's eco-Stalinists have about the same attention span as the Bolsheviks.

The above hissed in response by: BigLeeH [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 7:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: lawhawk

Look, there's nothing wrong with trying to reduce pollution and emissions. I want clean air to breathe, and in many respects the clean air act and other regulations have done that job. There is still a ways to go - especially in the third world where emissions are high due to using dirty fuels (high sulfur coal for example). Shifting to cleaner fuels will help clear the air of particulates and other pollutants, and that should be enough of a goal to spur change - but the global warming alarmism is rediculous. The billions spent on the hope that the global temps will drop by a fraction of one degree suggests that our priorities should lay elsewhere - like spending a few billion dollars on malaria prevention or on providing AIDS treatments to Africa.

The above hissed in response by: lawhawk [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 7:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: elwood

Also love the climate information and other posts!

One item missing from the news article: Given plate tectonics, was the arctic drill site within the arctic circle 55 million years ago? Just wondering.

The above hissed in response by: elwood [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 8:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

Dear Mr. Lizard,

This is not an actual comment, but I cannot find how to e-mail you otherwise. I enjoy your writings daily, and I was hoping you might at least glance through something I have written at http://discardedlies.com/entry/?16290_the-proper-configuration-of-death-taxation
on the estate tax. I apologize for being off-topic here. I have some hopes that what I wrote has some originality to it.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 9:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

"One item missing from the news article: Given plate tectonics, was the arctic drill site within the arctic circle 55 million years ago? Just wondering."

Answer - yes. http://www.elasmo.com/frameMe.html?file=refs/maps/map_eoc.html&menu=bin/menu_refs-alt.html

Strangely the mechanism for removal of carbon dioxide may well have been the melting of the arctic ocean. As the ice melted, and northern regions warmed, more and more carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere due to increased plant growth.

Of course the warming appears to have occurred over centuries, while the cooling took 100,000 years. Warming always seems to be abrupt, and cooling slower. But as most scientists would say, except when it isn't.

Also note that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with "clean" air. Carbon dioxide has always been present in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. Carbon dioxide is 0.35% of the total. There is 26 times more argon in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 87 ppm since the start of the industrial age.

Also note the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, accounting for 40 to 70% of the total temperature increase.

I'm not presenting this information solely for ammunition against global warming. This issue is exceedingly complex, and anyone who claims to know what will happen is not being entirely truthful. We are right to be skeptical. We may warm with more carbon dioxide. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. There will be lots of losers to global warming, but also lots of winners (Canada and Russia). The odd thing about this argument is that there is not a damn thing anyone can realistically do about it at this point. The carbon dioxide increase we have already initiated is likely to persist for thousands of years, even assuming we add no more. And we will have to add more if we want to keep everyone fed and an industrial society operating.

However, we should try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. to reduce the need for imported oil, and knock the pins out from under thugs like Vennesuala and Iran. Potentially protecting the environment is just a happy side benefit IMHO.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 11:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

Why stop at phony science, Dafydd?

I don't understand your point, MB. Are you claiming that this study, published in Nature (a refereed scientific journal), is actually "phony?" That there really isn't any good evidence of a warming event 55 million years ago?

Good heavens, on what basis do you make that claim? Are you an atmospheric scientist?

I think this is oddest comment you've ever made here.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 1:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: Master Shake

Uh oh. Somebody better warn the Captain - one of his pet trolls has escaped!

The above hissed in response by: Master Shake [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 2:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

"We need a twenty-year moratorium on "doing" anything about climate"

Monkeyboy, what does the IPCC say would be the effect -- 100 years from now -- of waiting twenty years, and then starting to do something?

What does the IPCC say would be the effect of fully implementing Kyoto today?

Wait, don't tell me: you refuse to read anything written by "political hacks paid to lie," anybody who questions the "reality" of Earth In the Balance and the Day After Tomorrow.

Before we start down this road, can you please let us know what your background is in math and science?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 4:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Meatss

Rush reported on this research today. He said a part that is not publicized is that with all the flora buried under the Artic Ocean, there may be huge deposits of oil. Some of the researchers didn't want to report those findings fearing an oil exploration rush which would add more fuel to the greenhouse gas crisis.

The above hissed in response by: Meatss [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 5:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

The Environmental Movement had its use in the beginning, but then gained far too much power, and became something akin to George Orwell’s Animal Farm...so to speak.

There is no significant downside to sentencing globaloney to a "timeout".

i agree, and ‘Da "timeout" can be used to strip the politically radical so-called Environmentalists of their power...whilst we build some needed nuclear Power Plants and Oil Refiners...whilst we drill for more oil...whilst we start using Oil Shale...etc.

Global warming: blame the forests

Fire on the Mountain

The lists go on and on and on...

Here is one of my Favorite Environmentalists: Patrick Moore, Ph.D.

ummmmmmmmm...seems that he has a new site - Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.

Anyway, Dr. Patrick was once very loved by the Environmental Movement, back in the days when he was still a “founding member of Greenpeace” whilst also a member.

Back during the mid-to-late 60’s, many Environmentalists were predicting that there would be no room left on Planet Earth by now, and i actually believed that crap. Heck, when i saw John Pitre’s “Sociopolitical” Overpopulation painting in a Coconut Grove Arts Festival, it took humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit me over 25-years to discover a place on Planet Earth where i could live alone (for roughly a decade now). i don’t know how Dafydd can find the room to even type posts like this, with other humans crawling all over his keyboard and hands.

i may move to the swamp at the North Pole, in the next year or two, since i’m starting to hear rumors that it is warmer than here. BTW, i have to wear fur lined loincloths here in Florida, during the winter months...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 6:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

Those evil liberal scientists have predicted that one immediate result of global warming is that hurricanes will become more and more intense...last year was a data point in their favor.
  1. No they haven't. If you think they have, point to the research.
  2. It's a good thing they didn't, because there is no particular increase in frequency or intensity of hurricanes over the past seventy or eighty years.
  3. Having called it a "data point" in your hurricane theory that a single cat-3 hurricane happened to hit a below-sea-level population center with lousy levees, you have actually removed any necessity of telling us what your math and science background is.

Don't bother; now we know.

We're at the up-point of a sinusoidal cycle; the 1970s were the low point. But if you go back to the 1950s and earlier, it was worse than now.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 7:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Dafydd,

MB is a troll banned by Captain Ed. Beware :).

MB is talking out of his/her backside. Reasonably accurate hurricane weather records are at most 50 years of data. Wow, an 882 mb hurricane. So impressive. What we cannot know from actual historical records as well as proxies for historical records are the central pressures of said known and/or inferred cat 5 hurricanes. Plus, said 882 mb pressure is an estimate based upon FL pressures and the error bars of the measurement and estimate are not given.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 9:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

I guess you skipped the first three words:

By the 2080's....

If claim is that in 75 years, there will be sufficient warming to cause a slight increase in hurricane intensity, then it is not evidence to point to any hurricane today.

There was no significant rise in the sea temperature between 2004 and now. So this model is irrelevant.

It's also not a study; nor is it a theory. It's a computer model.

A model is not a theory; it's just a model. It's a series of assumptions plugged into a computer program.

Other models predict no increase. There is no consensus, and we won't know for 50 to 75 years which is more accurate. There is no scientific consensus on global warming, seawater warming, and hurricanes.

This should be obvious. But of course, it's all lost on you.

Monkeyboy... how old are you? I know for a fact you did not major in any scientific field in college; I'm just wondering if you've even been yet.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 10:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

A scientist's model predicts global warming will increase hurricane intensity.

This sentence alone tells me you know next to nothing about science.

The next year, we get the most intense hurricane on record...plus a record number of category 5 hurricanes.

This one is just icing on the Antarctic.

Again, this conversation is pointless. When you have actually passed at least high-school level "science" classes (let alone the named classes at university, like physics or chemistry or -- horrors -- calculus and linear algebra), then return; and perhaps we can have a profitable discussion.

No, you can't just "pick it up" on your own. Perhaps some can; you need basic classes.

Until then, I may as well be talking to your simian namesake.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 1, 2006 11:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

What do you see?

I see a person who still hasn't any idea of the distinction between a scientific theory, a scientific hypotheis, and a computer model.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2006 1:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH

I'm starting to doubt your objectivity, Dafydd.

As well you should, MonkeyBoy. It is an unavoidable part of the human condition to be tempted to give more weight to data that support ones current opinions than to those that require adjustments to one's world view. It's something that I struggle with and I'm sure Dafydd does too.

I envy the peace that you get from your decision to give up the struggle -- to simply decide that you are right, once and for all and that everything that supports your position is proof and anything that contradicts your position is irrelevant.

So, by all means, go ahead and doubt Dafydd's objectivity. And rest assured, none of us have and "doubt" about yours.

The above hissed in response by: BigLeeH [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2006 8:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

I called that one data point in their favor...what would you call it?

Noise.

Monkeyboy, do you actually not understand why this "data point," as you choose to call it, is completely irrelevant to the model?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2006 1:37 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved