Brown University Geologists Create 5-million-year Climate Record

[sunsettommy]

From SCIENCE DAILY,


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Source: <!-- SOURCE BEGIN -->Brown University (http://www.brown.edu/)<!-- SOURCE END -->
Posted: <!-- DATE BEGIN -->April 11, 2006<!-- DATE END -->
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>Yahoo:<SCRIPT src="http://sm.feeds.yahoo.com/Buttons/V1.0/yactions.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>yactions.buildButton('Save','My_Web');</SCRIPT>
del.icio.us: http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/delicious.small.gif Save This Page (http://del.icio.us/post)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Brown University Geologists Create 5-million-year Climate Record

<!-- BODY BEGIN -->Using chemical clues mined from ocean mud, Brown University (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410163046.htm#) researchers have generated the longest continuous record of ocean temperatures (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410163046.htm#) on Earth.

The 5-million-year record is a history (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410163046.htm#) of temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific, or EEP, located off the coast of South America. The area is an anomaly – a huge swath of cool water in the tropics – that plays an important role in global climate. In the EEP, trade winds pull nutrient-rich cold water to the surface, which makes for fertile fisheries off the coasts of Peru, Chile and Ecuador. The interplay of wind and water can also fuel El Niño events, a large-scale warming in the EEP that slows the upwelling of cold water and forces changes in weather (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410163046.htm#), such as droughts or floods, far from the tropical Pacific.

In the EEP, the Brown geology team found that surface temperatures were 27° C 5 million years ago. Surface temperatures are 23° C today. In between, they found a pattern of steady cooling – roughly one degree Celsius every million years.(Emphasis Sunsettommy's)

This finding, published in Science (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410163046.htm#), contradicts the long-standing notion that rapid glacier growth in the high northern latitudes about 3 million years ago alone set off dramatic cooling of the global climate. The finding shows instead that glaciation was part of a long-term cooling trend.

(more)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410163046.htm

[DesertFox]

Damn. That means the global warming guys are liars, cheats and frauds. Whoda thunkit? :question:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Damn. That means the global warming guys are liars, cheats and frauds. Whoda thunkit? :question:
No surprise there. We've known that all along.:evilgrin:

[sunsettommy]

The point was made that we keep learning and that learning can overturn a "long standing notion" with real science.

Since it was published in Science it MUST be good since it passed the reviewers.

Got that Markus and Bob?

:grin:

[DesertFox]

Next thing you know, we'll find out that the planet can cool down even as all the glaciers melt, and warm up even as glaciers are forming -- as if glaciers were an effect, not a cause, of global climate change.

Dagnabbit, this climate stuff gets complexer and complexer all the time.

[Timberwolf]

Besides, forecasting the weather patterns for next WEEK...well, you know where I'm goin' with that one....LOL

[sunsettommy]

Besides, forecasting the weather patterns for next WEEK...well, you know where I'm goin' with that one....LOL

But that is not fair!

How can you plug in those CO2 atmospheric gases equations into a week ahead forecast?

How mean of you!

:grin:

[Aussie]

Damn. That means the global warming guys are liars, cheats and frauds. Whoda thunkit? :question:Huh? Did you actually read what the article said? It didn't have anything to do with global warming.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Huh? Did you actually read what the article said? It didn't have anything to do with global warming.
It had everything to do with global warming because it shows that climate change is a natural occurrence as is the current global warming.

[Aussie]

It had everything to do with global warming because it shows that climate change is a natural occurrence as is the current global warming.Well, duh. Earth has gone through countless climate changes without us. But I still don't get what a natural swing in temperature over 5 million years ago has to do with the current global warming.

Scientists have never denied that climate change has happened without human intervention. After all, we weren't even around then.

[Popperite]

In the EEP, the Brown geology team found that surface temperatures were 27° C 5 million years ago. Surface temperatures are 23° C today. In between, they found a pattern of steady cooling – roughly one degree Celsius every million years.

I don't get it. This is about a general trend of millions of years. The GW debate is about a mere rimple in the ocean compared to that.

[Popperite]

It had everything to do with global warming because it shows that climate change is a natural occurrence as is the current global warming.

And how does it show that?

[Naturalized-Texan]

And how does it show that?
It shows that climate change is natural. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Popperite]

It shows that climate change is natural. What's so hard to understand about that?

We already knew that. How does that in itself make that the current global warming couldn't be due to gasses added to the system by humans?

[sunsettommy]

We already knew that. How does that in itself make that the current global warming couldn't be due to gasses added to the system by humans?

Maybe this will help?


This finding, published in Science, contradicts the long-standing notion that rapid glacier (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410163046.htm#) growth in the high northern latitudes about 3 million years ago alone set off dramatic cooling of the global climate. The finding shows instead that glaciation was part of a long-term cooling trend.

The climate record suggests that ocean regions near Antarctica were the main driver of EEP cooling by continuously pumping cold water into the area. This finding was bolstered by additional evidence that glacial cycles affected the tropical Pacific long before the advent of large ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere.


Note the lack of CO2 discussion in the article?

[Popperite]

Maybe this will help?
Note the lack of CO2 discussion in the article?

Yes I noted that, but I don't see the relevance. This shows that climate change can come about by causes other than human induced Co2 emissions and we already knew that.

The trouble I'm having with the whole discussion about global warming is frankly that I don't see why the whole proposition is so outrageous as some seem to think.

As Timberwolf pointed out, the weather is a very unstable system even the meteorologists have a hard time figuring out at times. The number of factors that play a role in this is very large.

We know that greenhouse gasses that occur naturally play a big role in keeping the system stable.
We also know that humans add additional greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and that this was increased by industrialisation and population growth in the last hundred years.

Simply put, I can't see why it is out of the question that this will have some influence. Regardless of other naturally occuring mechanisms that produce climate change.

Even if the rate of human emitted greenhouse gasses versus naturally occuring greenhouse gasses is relatively small, it still is an added factor, and in an unstable system that may very well upset the balance. Also CO2 is relatively slow in being filtered out of the system compared to other greenhouse gasses.

I hope you guys are right and we have nothing to fear. I just don't see how all this stuff about Ice Ages and changes in climate that occur naturally anyway is relevant to the matter.

I suppose you ar looking for an alternative explanation for what is happening today, and that's fine. But that does not in itself refute the argument put forward by GW research.

[sunsettommy]

Yes I noted that, but I don't see the relevance. This shows that climate change can come about by causes other than human induced Co2 emissions and we already knew that.

The trouble I'm having with the whole discussion about global warming is frankly that I don't see why the whole proposition is so outrageous as some seem to think.

As Timberwolf pointed out, the weather is a very unstable system even the meteorologists have a hard time figuring out at times. The number of factors that play a role in this is very large.

We know that greenhouse gasses that occur naturally play a big role in keeping the system stable.
We also know that humans add additional greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and that this was increased by industrialisation and population growth in the last hundred years.

Simply put, I can't see why it is out of the question that this will have some influence. Regardless of other naturally occuring mechanisms that produce climate change.

Even if the rate of human emitted greenhouse gasses versus naturally occuring greenhouse gasses is relatively small, it still is an added factor, and in an unstable system that may very well upset the balance. Also CO2 is relatively slow in being filtered out of the system compared to other greenhouse gasses.

I hope you guys are right and we have nothing to fear. I just don't see how all this stuff about Ice Ages and changes in climate that occur naturally anyway is relevant to the matter.

I suppose you ar looking for an alternative explanation for what is happening today, and that's fine. But that does not in itself refute the argument put forward by GW research.

Gosh all that worry over a trace gas!

Of course Humans have added CO2 to the total.The problem is that CO2 is an overrated greenhouse gas.The fearmongering so commonly seen in Environmental circles have spilled into the U.N. backed IPCC.Who themselves since 1991 posted ever decreasing CO2 impact with reduced warming predictions and ever growing acknowledgement of the Solar effect.

Now that Article I posted showed that there are OTHER effects in the worlds climate besides the overrated CO2 greenhouse gas.To promote warming or cooling.CO2 greenhouse effect was not a part of that discussion.

Sometimes we can discuss warming and cooling in the past without ever invoking the greenhouse gas.We can do that today too.

That is what you miss.

[Popperite]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Aussie
Huh? Did you actually read what the article said? It didn't have anything to do with global warming.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>It had everything to do with global warming because it shows that climate change is a natural occurrence as is the current global warming.

This is where the point was made. I initially reacted to this.

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by Naturalized-Texan
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Aussie
Huh? Did you actually read what the article said? It didn't have anything to do with global warming.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>It had everything to do with global warming because it shows that climate change is a natural occurrence as is the current global warming.</I>

This is where the point was made. I initially reacted to this.

Gosh I guess then what happened millions of years ago is NOT a natural occurrence in climate change.:roar:

He is arguing that the climate then as now are a part of natural climatic pattern called CLIMATE CHANGE.It is natural.

See why you miss NT's point?

Meanwhile I did say that CO2 is not part of the articles discussion.The point being that Climate Change can occur without greenhouse gases participation.

[Aussie]

It had everything to do with global warming because it shows that climate change is a natural occurrence I agree with that. The article shows that climate change is a natural occurence.

as is the current global warming.But the article says nothing on the current global warming. It doesn't state it anywhere.

[sunsettommy]

It had everything to do with global warming because it shows that climate change is a natural occurrence

Aussie]I agree with that. The article shows that climate change is a natural occurence.

as is the current global warming.

But the article says nothing on the current global warming. It doesn't state it anywhere.

Both you and Pop seems unable to find a line from either me or NT saying that the article ITSELF states something about current Global Warming.

:rolleyes:

When I said was that the article shows that something OTHER than CO2 can strongly change the climate.

That of course shows climate change then is a natural occurrence.

NATURAL OCCURENCE are the keys words.

Global Warming NOW IS a natural occurrence

Global Cooling IS a natural occurrence.

What happened millions of years ago was a natural occurrence.

Maybe that was enough for you?

:sad:

[Popperite]

I suppose that what Aussie and I are trying to say here is that the fact that climate change in the past was a 'natural' occurence does not imply that global warming now is THEREFORE also a 'natural' occurence. I took NT's words as implying that, but I might have been wrong.