New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Schneibster]

has it not occurred to you that such a bloom would require an even bigger bloom of green life first?

I guess you don't know much about plankton. In any case, you're arguing against a fact established by sea bottom mud cores. Sorry you're having trouble with reality.

So you can't answer?

I just did.

[mistermack]

I just did.

You certainly didn't. Any bloom of animal life requires a bigger bloom of green life first.
Right or wrong?

[Schneibster]

I just did.

You certainly didn't.

you're arguing against a fact established by sea bottom mud cores

You have to actually read it. Sorry about that, forgot for a moment who I was talking to.

[mistermack]

You have to actually read it. Sorry about that, forgot for a moment who I was talking to.

Because you don't know? That's fair enough.
I won't read it, because it sounds like bollocks. Maybe it's just your interpretation that's nonsensical?

[Schneibster]

Sorry you're having trouble with reality. Denying that someone wrote what they just wrote won't help.

[mistermack]

Sorry you're having trouble with reality. Denying that someone wrote what they just wrote won't help.

I asked you a very very very very very very very simple question.
Does a bloom of animal life require a previous bloom of green life?

It's a simple choice.

[Schneibster]

Sorry you're having trouble with reality. Denying that someone wrote what they just wrote won't help.

I asked you a very very very very very very very simple question.
Does a bloom of animal life require a previous bloom of green life?

It's a simple choice.

It's immaterial; and that means it's an attempt to mislead. The mud cores say what happened. Sorry you're having trouble with reality.

[nellikin]

Sorry to come back to CO2 in Greenland - but I really do think that CO2 lag is only observed in the Antarctic. As Greenland warming occurs a few millenia after Antarctic warming, atmospheric CO2 levels are already high before warming occurs. I hope this link is correct: http://0-www.sciencemag.org.library.new ... 8eee39e5fe.

"Second, an increase in CO2 predates, by 2 to 5 ka, the abrupt warming in Greenland associated with DO events, 8, 12, 14, 17, 20 and 21, the largest and longest abrupt events in the Greenland record over this time period"

which is illustrated in thegraph:

[Schneibster]

That's a pay site that most of us won't have access to. If you'll give the title I'll check around the 'Net and see if there's a free copy so everyone can download it and have a look. Or a synopsis.

It sounds very much as if you're correct, and I'm wrong. This is fascinating, and something I hadn't heard about. What do DO events correspond to in terms of deglaciations? Is one of them the most recent one at 11 ka?

[Schneibster]

Hey, way totally cool, you can register for free access. And this article is available with that. Reading...

[Schneibster]

How I interpret this is, Antarctic warming precedes CO2 increase, and Greenland warming follows it. This is consistent with plankton in the Northern Pacific and Atlantic being indirectly stimulated by Antarctic and Southern Ocean warming caused by Milankovitch cycle-driven positive insolation change (warming from the Sun) as it wobbles up. The paper refers to the CO2 spike as being driven by "physical and biological activity" on the second page. There is in addition an increase in methane. The CO2 and CH4 then drive global warming that melts Greenland. All of this happens over a 2 to 5 ka period, followed by an abrupt re-descent in CO2, CH4, and Greenland and Antarctic temperatures, presumably as the Milankovitch cycle-driven insolation wobbles down again.

This makes the "800 year CO2 lag" look pretty ridiculous; it's pretty clear that Antarctica starts warming up about 22 ka, and that Greenland doesn't start until much later, more like 16 ka. The CO2 again rises somewhere between them, at about 18 or 19 ka. So the Antarctic again, just as in the DO events the paper talks about, warms first, responding to the Milankovitch cycle, then the Southern Ocean de-stratifies, then the CO2 goes up, then Greenland melts from global warming.

Do you agree with this analysis?

This makes the argument that the CO2 is "being driven not driving" even more ridiculous; it's not an 800 year lag, it's a 2000 to 5000 year lag, and it looks like you were entirely correct, nellikin. And I was too, except I understood it on the wrong timescale. Whoever was yammering about 800 year lags, that's apparently no longer operative. Science does move on, after all.

And, I got free access to (some) Science articles.

Bonus. Thanks, nellikin.

[nellikin]

[mistermack]

I'm surprised that you're still pushing that "plankton bloom" theory.
Not only does it have the flaw that I pointed out, but you have to remember that plankton fix an awful lot of CO2 as carbonates in their shells, which gets locked away from the ocean and atmosphere for millions of years as sedimentary muds and eventually limestone rock.

Where is the evidence that increased plankton causes increased CO2 ?

[Schneibster]

I'm surprised that you're still pushing that "plankton bloom" theory.

What "biological process" do you suggest as an alternative? I quote from the material on the second page of that article. Have you read it?

Not only does it have the flaw that I pointed out, but you have to remember that plankton fix an awful lot of CO2 as carbonates in their shells, which gets locked away from the ocean and atmosphere for millions of years as sedimentary muds and eventually limestone rock.

You apparently don't know much about plankton.

Where is the evidence that increased plankton causes increased CO2 ?

You really don't understand much about plankton.

Not to mention climate.

[Woodbutcher]

mistermack, in your understanding, what is a greenhouse gas. It seems that you do not understand basic chemistry at all. The greenhouse gas mechanism has been an accepted scientific fact since the 1800's, more GG, more heat is retained. Feedback is simple , heat GG containing material, release more GG, retain more heat for more heating of GG containing material etc. Tundra contains methane and is warming up releasing GG. Clathrates in the ocean can release huge amounts of methane. Deforestation causes less CO2 absorption. Farming releases GG's. Coal and oil release GG's. We're doing this. This means we are fastening the onset of a warm period with its change of local weather conditions. Fucking simple.