Andrew, you need a vacation! On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote:
> I'm not seeing much agreement between this graph and others I've seen. The > graph below seems almost bistable in behavior. > > The graph at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view > tells a very different story, it seems - and this concurs with other > sources I've seen. > > Whilst I'm on the phone, I may as well mention something else interesting I > stumbled across today. Apparently there is a new theory to explain the > PETM, namely the 'hot blobs' (yes, that's the proper name) of magma rise up > and lift the crust. If that crust happens to be clathrate-covered ocean > floor, this causes depressurisation and dissociate of the clathrates, > followed by methane excursion. A blob spreading out over a few 10's of K > yrs would neatly explain the pulsed temperature rises of the PETM. > > A > > On 19 April 2011 22:27, Glyn Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gene: >> >> Wow! It seems you -- sorry, I mean Dr. Scotese, has a very dark >> vision of the future. >> >> You say: "This is Scotese’s data and his interpretation." I hope >> you're not putting words in Dr Scotese mouth. Could you please point >> out where he claims the current warming trend is due to plate >> tectonics. I don't see any published works from him making any such >> postulation - peer reviewed or otherwise. BTW. His publications are >> found here: http://www.uta.edu/ra/real/editprofile.php?pid=145#7. >> >> Your drawing shows the temperature flipping about 8 times in half a >> billion years. It seems a cosmic coincidence that we hit another such >> flip just as humanity's GHG footprint soars. >> >> Theory should be predictive. Take these two points for example: >> >> In 1937 Guy Stewart Callendar published an early quantitative analysis >> of AGW [1]. He wrote: “It is well known that the gas carbon dioxide >> has certain strong absorption bands in the infra-red region of the >> spectrum, and when this fact was discovered some 70 years ago it soon >> led to speculation on the effect which changes in the amount of the >> gas in the air could have on the temperature of the earth’s surface.” >> >> Then in 1965 the Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, >> President’s Science Advisory Committee [2] “By the year 2000 the >> increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be >> sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in >> climate. [AGW] could be deleterious from the point of view of human >> beings.” >> >> 1. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on >> temperature, Callendar 1938. >> 2. Restoring the Quality of our Environment, President’s Science >> Advisory Committee, 1965 >> >> Glyn >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Glyn: >> > >> > >> > >> > Here is another earlier version of Scotese’s data going back several >> hundred million years to which I had added time on the horizontal axis. He >> has made corrections to this graph which is what is shown on his current >> website. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Several points to note. Once the temperature started to increase from an >> ice age low of actually about 10 C after -520 MA it continued to increase to >> actually 25 C. (there are two blips to higher temperature at about -250 MA >> and one about -60 MA These caused major die outs.) It always did the steady >> increase; sometimes taking millions of years to increase through the full >> temperature range but it never stopped increasing until it asymptoted at 25 >> C. It is currently at almost 16 C and rising; having risen from about 12 C >> in the last 10,000 years. I am interpreting nothing. This is Scotese’s data >> and his interpretation. If one reads Scotese's website one can conclude that >> the changes are triggered by motion of land masses, which of course >> influence ocean currents. The GHG independent component of warming is >> happening now and heading toward 25 C. I am not claiming that current >> warming has no GHG component. I did not say but will say it here that the >> AGHG dependent component of the warming is not nailed down, except to say >> that some of the warming since late 1700s is no doubt geological. >> > >> > >> > >> > I suspect we will wait another 20,000 years at least before the >> temperature asymptotes at 25C. Long before that life as we know it will end. >> Perhaps only Antarctica will have a viable ‘conventional’ life style. The >> rest of humanity will live in domed cities, using thermonuclear power >> generation or equivalent. One major asteroid hit such as occurred at -250 MA >> near the Antarctic will end it for virtually all life on earth. Over 95% of >> species disappeared at -250 MA. As you may know that 10 to 15 km asteroid >> cracked the earth’s crust and triggered a million years of volcanic >> eruptions throughout Siberia. >> > >> > >> > >> > Hope this helps a little. I have not read his book but that might help: >> > >> > Palaeozoic Palaeogeography and Biogeography >> > >> > by Christopher R. Scotese, W. Stuart McKerrow >> > >> > -gene >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: Glyn Roberts [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:12 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: [email protected]; Geoengineering >> > Subject: Re: [geo] On what research I would suggest >> > >> > >> > >> > Gene: >> > >> > >> > >> > You say the paleoclimate record tells us that the Earth will flip into a >> warm state - increasing its average temperature by almost 10 degrees C from >> current values? - without GHGs no less! Please connect the dots for me/us >> on how you arrived at this bold interpretation of the data. Dr. Scotese's >> website doesn't seem to offer this projection. I would have thought the >> paleoclimate record suggests a return to another glacial epoch - if we were >> to ignore the effect of GHGs. So when is your GHG independent warming going >> to happen? Within the next few decades I presume - clearly this is what you >> suggest if we need a geoengineering society established now to deal with it. >> > >> > >> > >> > Glyn >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Eugene I. Gordon < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > If the documented history of the Earth's climate for the past 450 >> million >> > years (see www.scotese.com) has any relevance, the global average >> > temperature is headed for 25 C, up almost 10 degrees C from current >> values, >> > even without the benefit of anthropogenic CO2. Needless to say, but >> worth >> > emphasizing, even if we stopped producing CO2 tomorrow and could remove >> > current excess atmospheric values we are headed for serious climate >> warming >> > problems. The social implications are enormous and there is little doubt >> > that techniques for minimizing the temperature rise will become >> essential if >> > they are not now extremely important. Hence I argue for formalizing the >> > study of geoengineering techniques/technology before leaping in to do >> > something about current concerns with a particular approach. Having a >> formal >> > geoengineering society would have immense value. Plant some of the seed. >> > Don't simply eat it all now. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] >> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:00 AM >> > To: Geoengineering >> > Subject: [geo] On what research I would suggest >> > >> > Ken et al.--Note that I am going to focus on SRM approaches here. A >> word, >> > however, on CDR, which, it seems to me, is just not at all likely to >> make an >> > important contribution to limiting climate change until global emissions >> are >> > brought down a good bit through efficiency, essentially giving up coal, >> etc. >> > With global C emissions nearing 10 GtC/yr and rising, working on >> approaches >> > that at maximum might make it up to sequestering 1-2 GtC/yr is just >> > premature--we need to take other steps first. The one exception here, it >> > seems to me, is to see if we can figure out how to deal with ocean >> > acidification such as through Greg Rau's approach--I'm not sure if that >> is >> > more mitigation or not. >> > >> > On SRM approaches, as I have been saying for a couple of years, it seems >> to >> > me that the highest priority for early research should be on determining >> if >> > it is possible to use various of the proposed SRM techniques in very >> focused >> > ways to limit worsening impacts in the near-term (in places like the >> Arctic, >> > the loss of sea ice, ice sheet mass, and permafrost is an emergency now, >> or >> > nearly so, and so waiting to move toward implementation seems too >> hesitant >> > to me. With this perspective, I would set up a very mission-focused >> program >> > goal of coming up with a tested approach for dealing with one or more of >> the >> > most severe impacts, aiming for making a decision to move forward with >> > implementation starting in of order of five years (so a 5-year research >> > program to get to the implementation stage, and then ongoing research as >> > implementation is in progress). >> > >> > The types of impacts that I would choose to focus on would include some >> > combination of the following (and there are of course interlinkages): >> > generally reducing Arctic warming (which would also lead to some likely >> > beneficial cooling in mid-latitudes); slowing the loss of ice from the >> major >> > ice sheets; keeping permafrost frozen; redirecting or intensifying >> seasonal >> > storm tracks into increasingly arid regions like southwestern North >> America >> > and/or Australia; cooling the waters where hurricanes/tropical cyclones >> > intensify; and similar steps. There are those who argue that nothing can >> be >> > done primarily regionally--that everything leads to global responses; >> > determining whether such global connections are statistically >> significant or >> > not (and whether varying details of the implementation could be done to >> > reduce them) would be a clear issue to research--including whether what >> > long-distant linkages there are are beneficial or harmful. >> > >> > With focused objectives such as these, I would think that there could be >> > much more focused environmental and social science research as >> well--much >> > more clearly presenting the issue as a risk-risk evaluation than arises >> in >> > discussions of future global geoengineering. On the benefit side there >> would >> > at least be a clear beneficial change being sought, which can get much >> more >> > confused in the global case. I should also note that I think focusing on >> > moderating regional-scale impacts, there would hopefully be less of a >> > tendency to reduce effort on mitigation (if that really is a problem), >> > because, of course, there are a whole host of impacts not being >> addressed. >> > >> > Not only would success in coming up with an approach for dealing with >> severe >> > impacts such as mentioned above, but it would also help to build >> > understanding about the various approaches and the basis for ongoing, >> but >> > lower priority research on potential global implementation, which I >> think >> > should also be considering what I think would be more realistic >> > implementation scenarios (e.g., implementing incrementally to stop and >> > slowly reduce radiative forcing starting in the near-term) than >> imagining >> > we'd figure out and agree on when some threshold has been passed and do >> a >> > large and sudden emergency implementation (not even being clear that >> when so >> > far along everything can be reversed). >> > >> > I've written up some of these ideas over the past year or too for >> various >> > studies, but had not passed them around, so will attach to this message. >> The >> > first memo offers some thoughts on how I would organize a US program, >> and an >> > accompanying table suggest some specific research efforts. Note that >> this >> > memo envisions not just the very focused applied effort, but also an >> > independent research and evaluation effort to keep make sure questions >> get >> > raised and considered--again relating to moving toward the specific >> proposed >> > objective, but in this effort on real and potential shortcomings, and >> not >> > just a general research effort (we need more money for that). The second >> > memo was prepared as a more detailed example of how one might structure >> the >> > component of the program aimed at moving rapidly to limit Arctic >> warming. It >> > is posed as a letter dated a few years hence seeking approval for moving >> > ahead with a major field program to test approaches that have already >> been >> > tested in computer simulations, etc. Clearly an optimistic timetable, >> but >> > really the type of one that is needed given what seem to be irreversible >> > changes (like loss of mass from Greenland, loss of biodiversity, etc.) >> that >> > we seem headed toward. >> > >> > Note that the ideas written up are over a year old, so a bit dated. And >> > these are just ideas--they would greatly benefit from some intense >> > discussion about how to do even better, etc. I just think we are moving >> far >> > too slowly right now. >> > >> > Best, Mike MacCracken >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> > "geoengineering" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]. >> > For more options, visit this group at >> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "geoengineering" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> > For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > >> > >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
