meteorologist Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels/ Checked some of those links........funny how they all use ridicule and no science. They even ridicule newly extinct species. I'll take vanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meteorologist Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~huberm/Matthew_Hubers_Climate_Dynamics_Prediction_Laboratory/Long_CV.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 The article treats this as some kind of revelation. It has been known for quite some time that Antarctic glaciation began just over 30 million years ago. The temperature began to drop rapidly in the middle of the Eocene. By the Oligocene, 34-24 million years ago, glaciers started forming in Antarctica. The growth of ice sheets led to a dropping of the sea level. Tropical jungles gave ground to cooler woodlands. SEE: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/temperature.html#100Myr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels/ OK, so Huber seems to check out - but here's what that Science paper says (end of abstract) Our results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds. Funny, that doesn't seem to support your premise at all....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Huber's impressive - Lewis Page much less so. Mark Pagani is the lead author of the paper, not Matthew Huber - and Lewis Page has a history of misrepresenting what others actually say. Post some quotes FROM THE PAPER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Huber's impressive - Lewis Page much less so. Mark Pagani is the lead author of the paper, not Matthew Huber - and Lewis Page has a history of misrepresenting what others actually say. Post some quotes FROM THE PAPER What's hilarious about this is that the cited paper DEBUNKS what Page is saying " Previously published records of alkenone-based CO2 from high- and low-latitude ocean localities suggested that CO2 increased during glaciation, in contradiction to theory. Here, we further investigate alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds." Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 OK, so Huber seems to check out - but here's what that Science paper says (end of abstract) Our results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds. Funny, that doesn't seem to support your premise at all....... That's a pretty transparent attempt at disinformation by "The Register" , which totally misstates the referenced study. There should be a law against that kind of behavior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 That's a pretty transparent attempt at disinformation by "The Register" , which totally misstates the referenced study. There should be a law against that kind of behavior It is part and parcel of the wingnut FUD attack on AGW science........one might call it a "zombie strategy". Throw so much garbage at the science that the scientists won't have time to field it all. This way, you don't NEED sophisticated arguments/fabrications. Just drown 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter M Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 There was no ice in the arctic 15 million years ago- or Greenland when C02 levels where as high as today (around 400ppm) http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx At that time Antarctic was glaciated, but far less then today. I would say 450-550ppm would be enough for most of Antarctic to be free of ice and snow throughout the year. Hansen feels 450ppm sustained would melt most of the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.