Quick primer for the believers in AGW.

Actually, I not only read the article, but I went to the references (faster than sending anything to the publisher—I’m surprised I wasn’t told to do so, because that is what I tell my students.) By doing so, I read some interesting stuff.

As you know the Cenozoic Era, which we are still in, began ~66-65 MA. The PETM (aka LPTM) occurred ~56 to 55 Mya. Prior to PETM the ocean temp was 10°C - 15°C warmer than today. When PETM occurred there was a 5° to 6°C rise in deep-sea temperature with sea surface temps increasing as much as 8°C at high latitudes in less than 10 ky. Estimates reach up to “8°C of warming at Wilson Lake, New Jersey.” What I find fascinating is that studies have shown “in the fully continental Bighorn Basin, Wyoming” a warming of ~ 5° to 7°C (see p. 492 in the article of McInerney & Wing, 2011). The recovery period took ~200 ky. Going forward, there were two more aberrations. One in 34 Ma and the other in 23 MA. They were noted for cooling.

The title of the current article “Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years.”

Question #1: What was the carbon release rate from 66-65 Ma to 56 Ma? How much did it differ from the PETM? If the current release rate is unprecedented from 66 Ma, is not the carbon release rate prior to PETM important to know? The authors only address PETM that happened ~56-55, but yet include this additional 11 Ma in the title and their final paragraph.

Question #2: What is considered normal carbon release rates prior and after the recovery of PETM? Do scientists have those readings? Can't find a source.

Question #3 The authors only looked at one location—Millville, NJ (~5K surface temperature warming). I wonder if the same conclusion would be found for Bighorn Basin. Just curious.

Question #4: What is considered normal carbon release rate—without and with us humans? What were those time periods? We know it was way hotter ~66-65 MA than today. We know there was a rise in temps during PETM. 34 and 23 Ma brought about a cooling. How long did it get back to what is was prior or did it? I ask because of #8 summary point from the article of McInerney & Wing: Research on the PETM and other intervals of rapid global change has been driven by the idea that they provide geological parallels to future anthropogenic warming, but much remains to be done to gain information that can be acted on.(p. 508).

One other issue. Quoting from the current article (p. 328): Regarding impacts on ecosystems, the present/ future rate of climate change and ocean acidification [ref. 12,36,37] is too fast for many species to adapt [ref. 38], which is likely to result in widespread future extinctions in marine and terrestrial environments that will substantially exceed those at the PETM (ref. 13). Not according to PETM research. Summary points #5-#7 from the article of McInerney & Wing (p. 508):

5. Although there was a major extinction of benthic foraminifera, most groups of organisms did not suffer mass extinction.

6. Geographic distributions of most kinds of organisms were radically rearranged by 5–8◦C of warming, with tropical forms moving poleward in both marine and terrestrial realms.

7. Rapid morphological change occurred in both marine and terrestrial lineages, suggesting that organisms adjusted to climate change through evolution as well as dispersal and local extirpation. Where best understood, these evolutionary changes appear to be responses to nutrient and/or food limitation.

One last question: What’s with this alarm about the ocean temps rising? We are not even close to the ocean temps of 66-65 Ma—prior to PETM. Obviously, that time period was also prior to the last glacial period. How do we not know that the temps of 66-65 Ma are normal?
Have you sent these questions to the authors of the references? Since they are not on an oil company payroll, I'm sure you will get honest answers.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
OK, we're 9 pages in, time for an instant poll. Has anyone changed their position on the subject? This back and forth bantering is quite amusing... Jeebus, just imagine if we could put all this hot air worldwide to use.

The bottom line is that we earth peoples are hooked on modern living, that will involve use of fossil fuel for the foreseeable future -- and that's a fact Jack.
 

spadebit

Active Member
I did recently read that some expedition is surrounded by multiple polar bears in the artic and can't continue their research... How can this be? For years I've heard they'd be extinct by now. I dont know what to believe anymore.
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
I did recently read that some expedition is surrounded by multiple polar bears in the artic and can't continue their research... How can this be? For years I've heard they'd be extinct by now. I dont know what to believe anymore.
you'll find the answer contained within the groups who made the initial claim...... It's hilarious how "global warming" warriors always try to impeach research by looking at their funding, but never do it to their "own".

What this shows is, that the bears are adaptable, and fully capable of hunting land-dwelling creatures. On the other hand, maybe they just developed a taste for borscht.
 
you'll find the answer contained within the groups who made the initial claim...... It's hilarious how "global warming" warriors always try to impeach research by looking at their funding, but never do it to their "own".

What this shows is, that the bears are adaptable, and fully capable of hunting land-dwelling creatures. On the other hand, maybe they just developed a taste for borscht.
Why should they be forced to adapt? I see no humor in having to swim countless miles to finally land on an island that is too hot for their species and eventually die. This is pure and simple bullshit from corporate entities who care only for profit and fuck the environment, you, and I! You seem to be able to get away with political rants. That said , I am scared more than ever before in my life as to the possible presidential outcomes. I get to fish a flowing stream that has water cool enough and have go to another country to do it. This i do for five days each year. Listen to what others are saying: "bring your own water", "I've never seen this stream this low before", "the water is warmer than I've ever seen before". Fish kills, hoot owl closures, and now river shut downs. Seriously, Alex, I don't give the slightest shit if you .choose not to listen to volumes of peer revised evidence. But you are too intelligent a person to dismiss the real signs of global warming all around us and stated over and over again by people seeing and stating the reality as it transpires right before their eyes!
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
Pity the facts don't bear out-no pun intended-your claims...... We completely disagree about the root cause of "global warming": you think it's humans, I think it's not. And there's a ton of research to buttress my opinions as well, it's just that you refuse to consider it. Whatever. Our water here is flowing nicely, the snowpack was above normal, temperatures were lower than the warmists predicted here, and their panicked claims of armageddon have failed to come to fruition.

Your political rants are not based in fact. You can cherry pick this all you want, but you have zero PROOF of anthropogenic global heating. You refuse to accept that the climate of the planet has never been "stable", and has been in flux for 4.5 billion years. It will continue to be in flux for the next 4.5 billion years. You demand we change our lifestyles to fit your assessment, and try to guilt/shame/embarrass us into accepting "your" side's opinion. No thanks; I'm not buying into it. We have a dipshit "president" and his cronies who think maybe they can use the RICO statutes to go after people who don't toe the party line, and I have an M-4 which says "good luck". I believe-note I said "believe"-we're in a cultural war that will pretty soon break out into open warfare. I'd truly not like to see that, but unless things change, we're going to be at each other's throats-literally. You want a concrete example? I'm firmly in that "basket of deplorables" that the democrat candidate mentions. Good. C'est mon honore d'etre une "deplorable"!
 
Last edited:
Dude. Before you go off on the "basket of deplorables" comment as inciting violence, how about we consider DumFuk's suggestions about how to deal with supreme court nominations to the second amendment folks? Sheesh.
 
Pity the facts don't bear out-no pun intended-your claims...... We completely disagree about the root cause of "global warming": you think it's humans, I think it's not. And there's a ton of research to buttress my opinions as well, it's just that you refuse to consider it. Whatever. Our water here is flowing nicely, the snowpack was above normal, temperatures were lower than the warmists predicted here, and their panicked claims of armageddon have failed to come to fruition.

Your political rants are not based in fact. You can cherry pick this all you want, but you have zero PROOF of anthropogenic global heating. You refuse to accept that the climate of the planet has never been "stable", and has been in flux for 4.5 billion years. It will continue to be in flux for the next 4.5 billion years. You demand we change our lifestyles to fit your assessment, and try to guilt/shame/embarrass us into accepting "your" side's opinion. No thanks; I'm not buying into it. We have a dipshit "president" and his cronies who think maybe they can use the RICO statutes to go after people who don't toe the party line, and I have an M-4 which says "good luck". I believe-note I said "believe"-we're in a cultural war that will pretty soon break out into open warfare. I'd truly not like to see that, but unless things change, we're going to be at each other's throats-literally. You want a concrete example? I'm firmly in that "basket of deplorables" that the democrat candidate mentions. Good. C'est mon honore d'etre une "deplorable"!
The facts do bear themselves out.

But if those facts alone don't scare you, University of Alberta biologist Andrew Derocher's newest research may do it.

According to his study, glacier melt is forcing polar bears into the water where they must swim for days at a time to find solid ground. And while polar bears are adept swimmers, they are not evolutionarily equipped to tackle such long distances.

Derocher and his team began tracking the swimming patterns of bears near Alaska and Canada in 2004. Twelve years later, the results are in: By 2012, the number of bears swimming more than 31 miles grew from 25% to 69%. With no ice to land on, one mother bear in particular had swum without stopping for nine days, losing 22% of her body weight and her cub along the way.
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
you DO realize this has been debunked? that the bears died in a storm? Probably not. All the planet's creatures have gone through epochs of "adaptation". Some have succeeded, some not. Those which did not adapt, became extinct. All in all, there have been at least 5 mass extinctions on the planet; the last one ending the reign of the sauropods 65 million years ago, now attributed to both the meteor strike and the activation of many of the planet's supervolcanoes.
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
Dude. Before you go off on the "basket of deplorables" comment as inciting violence, how about we consider DumFuk's suggestions about how to deal with supreme court nominations to the second amendment folks? Sheesh.
Dude...I've put up with being spat on, flipped off, denigrated, put down, told I was a "bitter clinger", deplorable, racist, sexist, zenophobic, misogynistic, and "mean-spirited" ad nauseum. It took an act of fucking CONGRESS to get people to hire us after Viet Nam, we were so well loved when we returned. If you believe Trump was suggesting we "2nd Amendment" people would resort to violence to support the Amendment, you're a few beers short of a six-pack. There are approximtely 270 MILLION gun owners in this country. If we tended to violence, you'd know it!
 
Dude...I've put up with being spat on, flipped off, denigrated, put down, told I was a "bitter clinger", deplorable, racist, sexist, zenophobic, misogynistic, and "mean-spirited" ad nauseum. It took an act of fucking CONGRESS to get people to hire us after Viet Nam, we were so well loved when we returned. If you believe Trump was suggesting we "2nd Amendment" people would resort to violence to support the Amendment, you're a few beers short of a six-pack. There are approximtely 270 MILLION gun owners in this country. If we tended to violence, you'd know it!
We emphatically DO tend to violence:

10, 195 gun deaths so far this year.
21,228 injuries
223 mass shootings

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Anyone who claims that citing second amendment solutions isn't inciting violence....... I don't even know what to say. You yourself frequently seem to fantasize about the need to shoot some deserving low life. Another human being. It isn't normal.

Over and out.
 
Cold climates have killed more people than humans shooting guns with the intent to kill! Actually, that could be wrong but I'm pretty confident that governments have killed more people than either individuals with guns or climate. The second amendment exists to protect the people from a tyrannical government. We don't need guns to understand climate or tyranny but we do need guns to object.
 
you DO realize this has been debunked? that the bears died in a storm? Probably not. All the planet's creatures have gone through epochs of "adaptation". Some have succeeded, some not. Those which did not adapt, became extinct. All in all, there have been at least 5 mass extinctions on the planet; the last one ending the reign of the sauropods 65 million years ago, now attributed to both the meteor strike and the activation of many of the planet's supervolcanoes.

I assume you are referring to the canadian researcher who's so-called study groups are being questioned. Nevertheless, the accounts of the long swims remain true as do the bears not being able to tolerate foreign climates. Not sure why you would site adaptation caused by catastrophic events when we are now referring to man-caused adaptation???
 

Latest posts