Bolivian Glacier Disappears

[Avi]

The problem is, the abstract cites no figures for CO2 levels for the time period which he says the ice age in question took place. My sources show CO2 levels as still being many more times than today's levels for all periods outside of the Carboniferous and Permian.

p CO 2 was only 8 -20 PAL (pre-industrial levels):

Obliquity forcing with 8-12 times preindustrial levels of atmospheric pCO2 during the Late Ordovician glaciation -- Herrmann et al. 31 (6): 485 -- Geology

This CO2 level was low enough for glaciation.

 

[citizenzen]

This CO2 level was low enough for glaciation.

Thanks Avi! I'm glad to have you on our side.

I'll try not to slow the team down.

 

[seattlegal]

p CO 2 was only 8 -20 PAL (pre-industrial levels):

Obliquity forcing with 8-12 times preindustrial levels of atmospheric pCO2 during the Late Ordovician glaciation -- Herrmann et al. 31 (6): 485 -- Geology

This CO2 level was low enough for glaciation.

Only 8-20 times Present Atmospheric Level? (PAL) I think that still blows the CO2 causing global warming hypothesis out of the water! {Widespread glaciation with CO2 levels 8-20 times as high as today's levels? Yep. Glaciation can occur with CO2 levels 8-20 times today's levels!}

 

[Avi]

Only 8-20 times Present Atmospheric Level? (PAL) I think that still blows the CO2 causing global warming hypothesis out of the water! {Widespread glaciation with CO2 levels 8-20 times as high as today's levels? Yep. Glaciation can occur with CO2 levels 8-20 times today's levels!}

SG, you are partially right, but if you go back to the original Geology reference (v.33 n.2 p.109) you will see that the glaciation is a result of two other phenomenon which were unique for that period as well. Also PAL stands for pre-industrial atmospheric level, not present atmospheric level:

The subsequent regressive event in central Nevada, previously interpreted as part of a regional tectonic adjustment, is here attributed in part to sea-level drawdown from the initiation of continental glaciation on Gondwana. This drop in sea level—which may have contributed to further cooling through a reduction in poleward heat transport and a lowering of pCO2 by suppressing shelf-carbonate production—signals the transition to a Late Ordovician icehouse climate ;10 m.y. before the widespread Hirnantian glacial maximum at the end of the Ordovician

.

Thanks Avi! I'm glad to have you on our side.

CZ, good job finding the Ohio State paper.

 

[seattlegal]

SG, you are partially right, but if you go back to the original Geology reference (v.33 n.2 p.109) you will see that the glaciation is a result of two other phenomenon which were unique for that period as well. Also PAL stands for pre-industrial atmospheric level, not present atmospheric level:

.





CZ, good job finding the Ohio State paper.

Let's see 8 to 20 times NOAAH's pre-industrial level of 278 ppm would be 2,224 to 5,560 parts per million, as compared to today's levels of about 378 ppm.

Orbital forcing is not unique to that time period. If you claim that its influence (Milankovich cycle) is greater than the influence of CO2 levels, you diminish your CO2 level argument. (CO2 levels are big deal, in other words.)

As for the hysteresis effects, I agree that outcomes often vary from what is expected.

Variations in the magnetic field might have a great influence on climate, as it interacts with the sunspot cycle. This also diminishes your CO2 level argument.

 

[seattlegal]

The subsequent regressive event in central Nevada, previously interpreted as part of a regional tectonic adjustment, is here attributed in part to sea-level drawdown from the initiation of continental glaciation on Gondwana. This drop in sea level—which may have contributed to further cooling through a reduction in poleward heat transport and a lowering of pCO2 by suppressing shelf-carbonate production—signals the transition to a Late Ordovician icehouse climate 10 m.y. before the widespread Hirnantian glacial maximum at the end of the Ordovician

Hmm, so this study is saying the lowered CO2 levels was a result of the suppression of coral (and other calcium carbonate shelled critters) reefs? I don't think that method of lowering CO2 levels would meet with much politically correct approval today...

 

[wil]

The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

I think this is part of the crux of my thinking... I believe what is occurring now if man can be put to blame is the fault of what occurred hundreds of years ago....The time when we see the impact of our burning oil and plastics won't be felt for decades or centuries from now...and our fixes the same thing...

but again, I have no faith that we know how to fix anything on a global scale. Look at the space shuttle, the hubble, we can't keep the micro afloat, how are we going to know the impact of our actions on the macro?

 

[citizenzen]

They're [mammoths] still frozen after all this time. The grass under their bodies is still there--it didn't rot away in a thaw. Methinks that can rule out a freak storm. One moment, they were eating buttercups. Next moment, they were frozen, and have remained frozen for thousands of years. I would say that indicates a rapid transition to a stable, frozen climate.

SG, the brief amount of research I've put into this is already revealing possible holes in your interpretation.

But I don't want to presume to know which specific mammoth you're speaking of.

Could you please let me know so we can both talk about the same incident?

Thank you.

 

[seattlegal]

SG, the brief amount of research I've put into this is already revealing possible holes in your interpretation.

But I don't want to presume to know which specific mammoth you're speaking of.

Could you please let me know so we can both talk about the same incident?

Thank you.

Interesting. I really can't find much on the web about the reports I've read about during my pre-internet days. I recall reading about reports of such findings during the 18th, 19th and twentieth centuries in Siberia. I think some of the specific finds reporting green grass under the carcasses were from the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, as well as one from the 1970's. Interesting...
I'm certainly willing to look at the evidence again.

I found some nice video from National Geographic documenting the find of a one month old baby mammoth they named Lyuba here. (Click on the frames beneath the video to continue on to the next segment.) However, with Lyuba being only one month old, she wouldn't be eating solid food yet, so the contents of her digestive tract wouldn't give many clues about the vegetation at the time, and her being found in a river didn't preserve any vegetation her body might have covered. It seems that she was preserved in an anaerobic environment like a bog. It's still quite an interesting video, though.

 

[citizenzen]

Interesting. I really can't find much on the web about the reports I've read about during my pre-internet days. I recall reading about reports of such findings during the 18th, 19th and twentieth centuries in Siberia. I think some of the specific finds reporting green grass under the carcasses were from the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, as well as one from the 1970's. Interesting...
I'm certainly willing to look at the evidence again.

So you must be oh so close to coming over to our side, eh?

Welcome to the Climate Change Club, SG.

I'll get your membership badge ready...

 

[seattlegal]

So you must be oh so close to coming over to our side, eh?

Welcome to the Climate Change Club, SG.

I'll get your membership badge ready...

Hehehe!

I never said climate change wasn't happening. I said it's to be expected during an interglacial.

 

[citizenzen]

I never said climate change wasn't happening. I said it's to be expected during an interglacial.

You know, you're beautiful when you're stubborn.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Interesting. I really can't find much on the web about the reports I've read about during my pre-internet days. I recall reading about reports of such findings during the 18th, 19th and twentieth centuries in Siberia. I think some of the specific finds reporting green grass under the carcasses were from the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, as well as one from the 1970's. Interesting...
I'm certainly willing to look at the evidence again.

.

That so annoys me. Knowing I have read stuff in these things we used to get our information from....remember them? Think they were called books. And then being unable to find the same info on the web.

It does appear that atmospheric CO2 levels have tended to follow, not precipitate, swings in mean global temperature, according to ice and oceanic sedimentary cores. But this makes the problem even more worrying.
Planetary temperatures are rising. Of that there is no doubt. One of the most significant measurements that this is real is the deep ocean (below 2000m) temperature rise of about 0.4C since 1950. If the science is correct this is a temperature rise not seen since the Jurassic period. And the ramifications of such a rapid warming make our current worst case scenarios optimistic predictions. But we also have to remember that the Jurassic period was one of the richest and most productive eras in the geological record. An age of unprecedented amounts of biomass sustaining the mega fauna of gigantic proportions.
It would be folly to do nothing to curb the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. There is no doubt CO2 is a heat trapping gas and whatever the causes the Earth is warming and warming rapidly. We do not know that a tipping point is not imminent. It could be that at a critical point we really do get a runaway greenhouse effect that take temperatures beyond any hinted at precedent. With the mean average CO2 footprint still rising and population still in rapid ascent the combination is a disaster in waiting.

 

[seattlegal]

That so annoys me. Knowing I have read stuff in these things we used to get our information from....remember them? Think they were called books. And then being unable to find the same info on the web.

It does appear that atmospheric CO2 levels have tended to follow, not precipitate, swings in mean global temperature, according to ice and oceanic sedimentary cores. But this makes the problem even more worrying.
Planetary temperatures are rising. Of that there is no doubt. One of the most significant measurements that this is real is the deep ocean (below 2000m) temperature rise of about 0.4C since 1950. If the science is correct this is a temperature rise not seen since the Jurassic period. And the ramifications of such a rapid warming make our current worst case scenarios optimistic predictions.

Underwater volcanoes?
I think that the oceans are much more of a driving force in the earth's climate than the atmospheric gases, so I agree that we have to pay more attention to what is happening there.

But we also have to remember that the Jurassic period was one of the richest and most productive eras in the geological record. An age of unprecedented amounts of biomass sustaining the mega fauna of gigantic proportions.

I agree. However, much of today's dry land was then underwater.

It would be folly to do nothing to curb the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. There is no doubt CO2 is a heat trapping gas and whatever the causes the Earth is warming and warming rapidly. We do not know that a tipping point is not imminent. It could be that at a critical point we really do get a runaway greenhouse effect that take temperatures beyond any hinted at precedent. With the mean average CO2 footprint still rising and population still in rapid ascent the combination is a disaster in waiting.

I think that if we focus more on the pollution we produce, rather than the CO2 we produce, we stand a much better chance at being able to adapt. JMHO.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I think that if we focus more on the pollution we produce, rather than the CO2 we produce, we stand a much better chance at being able to adapt. JMHO.

I think they should all be taken together. We have to stop polluting whether it be CO2, Methane, PCBs, Isomers, Artificial Oestrogen type compounds, Nitrates and a long list of others. Many of them nature has no experience of prior to our creating them. Its a daunting challenge and one all of the corporate giants deliberately ignore. There is no government on Earth that has an enviromental policy that is not just lip service minimalism.

 

[juantoo3]

All the trees will die and we'll be forced to eat each other.

I hear Floridians are nice and crunchy... must be all that time in the sun.

mmmmmm... extra crispy.

But not quite as flaky, fruity or nutty as those Californians, huh? Must be all that time in the tanning booths.

With a liberal slather of mayonaisse, they might even be palatable...but I doubt it. Gotta watch for the silicone, its a bit like gristle.

It won't matter once the San Andreas lets go. There'll be beachfront property in Albuquerque any way you look at it.

 

[juantoo3]

How come nobody's talking about methane anymore? Has that somehow slipped in its relevence to the problem? Or is it because the solution is problematic?

I guess we can't ask everyone to "just hold" their flatulence...I suppose we could put a cork in all those pesky cows though.

 

[shawn]

Quote:
Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Quote:
This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

These quotes come from this site:
Home - Global Warming Petition Project


There are many good scientists that say there is no certainty in the science of global warming. To say for certain one way or another is scientific garbage.

Many of the same people that are espousing global warming now were claiming global cooling and a new ice age 20 years ago. There is a lot of hysteria, a lot of bad science, and a lot of budgetary motives (NASA) behind environmental studies.

The names on the Petition Project are real. They are real PHD and real scientists.




Quote:
32,000 deniers

That's the number of scientists who are outraged by the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, May 17, 2008

Read the full 2 page article here:
32,000 deniers

some people claim that the science has been "settled", that we must "act now to avoid disaster"; anyone who still dares to argue is branded a "denier". Is that the way to win a scientific discussion? Of course not. But some people don't care about science. They need all that name calling and fear-mongering to win votes in the next election.

 

[shawn]

Quote:
Arctic ocean volcano blew its top – even under pressure

* 25 June 2008
* NewScientist.com news service
THE deep ocean continues to surprise: it appears a volcano on the seabed has exploded with a force thought impossible.

In 1999, the largest-ever swarm of quakes was recorded on a mid-ocean plate boundary, on the Gakkel Ridge in the east Arctic basin.

To find out what caused it, Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts, and colleagues peeked at the ridge with a remote-controlled device. They found shattered rock spread over 10 square kilometres, suggesting a series of volcanic explosions (Nature, vol 453, p 1236).

Such explosions can occur in shallow water if the water rapidly vaporises, but beyond 3 kilometres down the pressure is too high. Sohn reckons the magma must have contained up to 10 times more carbon dioxide than thought possible. This separated out as the magma rose and built up in a chamber beneath the seabed. Eventually the roof cracked and the CO2 and magma burst out.

"It opens the door to a lot of things that we didn't suspect could happen," says David Clague of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California.
From issue 2662 of New Scientist magazine, 25 June 2008, page 21

Toxic gas emissions are produced when magma rises and gases that are trapped within the magma at depth are released. It works very similarly to carbonation being released when a bottle of soda is opened.

The two most common gases released when magma ascends is sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Sulfur dioxide can float high into the atmosphere and mix with water vapor to form sulfuric acid. When it rains, this sulfuric acid comes down with the rain, ruining crops and destroying farms. Carbon dioxide can be lethal to humans and livestock, as it is heavy and usually stays close to the ground.

So volcanoes which have been increasing their activity since 1960 can cause global warming via increased co2 (if that is how the cycle works) or global winter via the ash they release.
They are either way, bad for the environment and people.

According to usgs.gov, Kilauea emits about 1,300,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year. Kilauea is just one of almost 70 active volcanoes on the earth today.

Not only do Volcanoes Produce over 91 Billion Tons of Co2 a year, usgs.gov has reported that volcanoes expel tons of sulfur dioxide, mono hydrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, argon, neon, methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and many other deadly and toxic compounds.

Compare that with human output levels pleeze.

Dr. S.M. de Jong has found that gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane drive the oxygen out of the soil and the roots of the trees suffocate. As a result trees are dying over large areas around active volcanoes.

Dr. S.M. de Jong has also found that the amount of Toxic gasses being produced by active volcanoes has been increasing since 1995.

If the amount of Toxic material produced by volcanoes continues to increase over the next 50 years, the earth could increase in Global temperatures by 10 degrees. An increase in global temperatures could destroy our civilization.

According to reuters.com, Gas-belching volcanoes may be to blame for a series of mass extinctions over the last 545 million years, including that of the dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs killed by Indian volcanoes, not meteor: paleontologists


I have no issues with the idea that there is climate fluctuations(global cooling and global warming), but I have a big problem with where the finger of blame is being pointed.

 

[Avi]

Shawn, you mean well, but you are burying yourself:

1) It doesn't matter how many people sign a petition. Science is not done by voting, it is done by peer reviewed manuscripts. Virtually all the peer reviewed science links global warming to greenhouse gases.

2) The one legitimate reference you cite about volcanos vs. meteor impact reinforces the need to be careful about greenhouse gases.