262 comments on Global Warming - a review and a Conference Conclusion
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”
—George Eliot
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
One of the startling aspects to the some of the more recent pronouncements by the NAS (or atleast by the President of the NAS)are the constraints placed by isotopic carbon (and other stable isotopes). The ratio of C12/C13 in "new carbon" is much much different from the C12/C13 of "old carbon" associated with fossil fuels (fossil fuels are very, very rich in C12 compared to C13). According to the NAS, this ratio has been changing substantially and is the "smoking gun" of fossil fuels increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
According to the conference I attended this summer, that range is constrained to a minimum of about 65% and a maximum of about 90% with a mean of somewhere around 75% of the increase in CO2 originating with combustion of fossil fuels. I have seen suggested that it's "the oceans" causing this but other isotopes of dissolved gases would be showing up also. They aren't.
But the problem in suggesting that these physical processes of GHGs in the atmosphere are not significant or have little effect is the same as telling me that the NDIR analyzers we use to fine tune combustion operations or the FDIR monitors that we use work in ways that are inconsistent with and different from the physics of GHGs. It requires a special pleading of physics, one that I don't think physics yields up.
Lets go back to the Mass Faunal Extinction of the Permian.
Around the Permo-Triassic boundary, a MFE took place, knocking out about 95% of the fauna and flora.
Prior to this, a massive Extrusive Basalt flow occurred. (aka The Siberian Traps). Initially, this probably caused global dimming and cooling as particulates were released by these incredibly extensive flows. However at the same time, these flows generated a large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere.
As global dimming reduced, it is likely that the CO2 pulse gained primacy, heating up the atmosphere by 4-5 degrees C. This alone would account for some of the land based MFE.
As the planet warmed, the Oceans also warmed. The Marine MFE probably began then. It is possible that Ocean Waters became weakly acid, affecting exoskeletal marine organisms in the food chain, and that deep Ocean layers warmed up resulting in a release of Methane Clathrates. CH4 (with a high preponderance of C12 ) is a significant GHG.
This further pulse of GHG did for the rest of the land animals. It may have raised the global average temperature by a further 4-5 degrees C.
It did not help that at the time, the land masses of the Earth were conjoined (into more or less) supercontinent acting as a massive heat sink in the continental interior.
The Therapsids got it in the neck, allowing the Dinosaurs a chance to evolve and dominate. Along with one mammal-like creature…. The significance of which requires the extinction of the Dinosaurs in turn.
Ironically, this thermal pulse that lead to this mass faunal extinction probably created the huge algal blooms that were buried, later to be cooked into oil.
Key words from the above?
Probably
Likely
Maybe
May
Possible
No one can be quite sure what the current CO2 pulse will bring, or, if Solar fluctuations play a greater or lesser part. Or Chandler Wobbles, or Milankovitch Cycles, or Stellar bursts, or periods of vulcanicity.
But: Since the Hockey stick occurs within the same time frame as the increase in CO2 with the Industrial Revolution, then the precautionary principle may well be worth a considering.
The alternative could be another Methane pulse some time after the current CO2 pulse takes effect.
So far this is pretty frustrating reading. Although the hockey Stick temperature profile is supported by multiple lines of evidence and is the consensus view of scientists who understand the caveats, the counter arguments become close to silly given the rate the rate at which the north pole is disappearing.
On other comment, no one disputes the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and warms the planet. A typical number mentioned is that the earth would be 70 degrees colder if not for the presence of this gas.
History always repeats itself.
Neither history, nor pre-history, which is where your link leads, can repeat itself if the Second law of thermodynamics is valid.
History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. ;)
Huh? According to this Wikipedia article, the earth's carbon is 98.9% C-12, and 1.1% C-13. How could the ratio of C-12 to C-13 be anything like 75%? I thought the only thing that changed over time was the concentration of C-14 (which is present in minute quantities)? Am I missing something here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon
I imagine you know this already, but 75% of carbon being C-14 was not what was said. Only a very tiny percentage of carbon is C-14. C-14 has a half life of about 5730 yrs consequently all of the C-14 in fossil fuels has decayed, i.e. there is no C-14. Consequently as the burning of fossil fuels has added C-14 free carbon to the air, the proportion of carbon that is C-14 has dropped considerably. If you were carbon dated today using the standard curves developed for the past, they would announce you had died several thousand years ago. The 75% number is the estimate of the fraction of increased carbon that is from fossil fuels. I was surprised by this number as it implies 25% of increased CO2 is from natural carbon sinks – not good.