The link is broken, (just fixed it Patrick) but from Brett's description it would appear that the author presents no evidence that either the heating or cooling were due to CO2.

What can be inferred is that higher CO2 concentrations stimulate plant growth. (We already knew that.)

Higher CO2 concentrations occur during warm episodes, because the solubility of CO2 is lower in warm water. This is seen in the Vostok ice cores. Blaming CO2 for the warming is analogous to blaming the cart for being pulled by the horse.

I am pleased to learn of this plausible theory as to how steep rises in earth temperature are flipped.
Looking at charts which purport to plot temperature, carbon dioxide and sea level over the last million years or so, the cyclic nature is obvious. Repeatedly, there is a relatively rapid rise of temperature, CO2, and sea level...it peaks...then starts a prolonged decay back to minimums. A sawtooth waveform.
In electronic circuits, a sawtooth waveform is generated by saturation circumstances at the high and low points. I have suspected there was saturation in the world temperature waveform. The sea life growth makes sense.
How about the reversal at the bottom. What causes the decline to reverse?

Interesting, but if I recall the long range temperature trend charts correctly, do they not show that warming is slow and cooling was much faster?

The authors of the above-mentioned report were a bit premature with their conclusions. Apparently, according to this paper, "High methane in combination with low sulfate concentrations indicate that organic matter degradation is still active in the deep-seated black shale sequence deposited nearly 100 Ma ago. It is dominated by methanogenesis which gives rise to a diffusive flux of microbial methane out of the black shales. Upward diffusing methane as well as downward diffusing sulfate are totally consumed in the course of anaerobic methane oxidation (AOM). Complete depletion of sulfate within the black shale sequence promotes the remobilization of biogenic barite. Barium is released, diffuses upwards and reprecipitates as authigenic barite."

What this means is that the barite that these authors were seeing may be the result of organisms that died up to 100 million years ago and not entirely the result of the PETM.

They might want to do a bit more homework.

"According to Zachos, the accumulation of barite went on for 170,000 years, which indicates that it takes much, much longer to cool off a hot earth than to heat up a cool planet."

Which obviously means that there was something else driving the temp - outside of the planet.

CO2 build up and the supposed resulting climate change would have been so slow, that plants would have kept up with it. Plants grow fast, especially marine algae.

That leans more toward the sun heating up the planet.

Anyone who doubts the insanity of the global warming political community, should read this.

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/122407Lindorff.shtml

looks like global ice back to 1984 levels 1 million square km above anomalies. Also SH 2 million km anomaly above. Predict NH this winter to go above normal?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Hi Guys,

I agree with Patrick that just because the high CO2 concentrations does not infer that it is only CO2. Because the Carbon found is an isotope of methane when it reacts with oxygen. One theory has it that because of huge volcanic eruptions and continental drift exposed the methane ice and that melted and released huge amounts of methane that when reacting with oxygen creates CO2 and water vapor, this along with methane "could be" the cause but they just don't know. They are also leaving out that te are cycles in the earths orbit and rotation that can have dramatic changes in the climate during those time periods. We will get the usual people saying the models show so type of argument but the simple facts is that they can't agree on the amount of CO2 or the temperature back then. Ranges are from 1000 ppm to 2000ppm and 5 to 8 degrees C. the difference with todays CO2 is that there is nothing to amplify the CO2 i.e. water vapor. Studies show that water vapor is not increasing thus you can not have a CO2 driven temperature rise. CO2 itself can't raise temperature do to the fact that it is logarithmic in its ability to absorb and radiate heat. If CO2 alone was to cause the warming it would have to be 7000 ppm to 8000 ppm and we would have a hard time just living at those levels.

Vincent,

Nice to see that cryosphere today is back on line. It looks like worldwide sea is on a sharp trajectory towards the largest positive anomaly on record in the next couple of weeks.

Meanwhile, Al Gore is teaching our schoolchildren that the poles are "melting at an unprecedented rate." Astonishing that he gets away with this. In the business world, his behavior is known as fraud.

The full text of the paper is here.

I see that Patrick continues in his quest to believe (or pretend he believes) only what supports his ideology. How dull.

FYI, Patrick, as the article made clear the paper isn't about the warming as such. What it's about is how the high CO2 levels were drawn down.

So you think the high CO2 levels were caused by warming? Then what caused the warming? Evidence, please, including a peer-reviewed refutation of the basic physics showing that increased atmospheric CO2 will result in warming. BTW, a Nobel is yours for the taking if you're the one to come up with such a proof.

While you're at it, let's see a calculation showing the amount of ocean warming that would be needed to outgas an extra 500 ppm or so of CO2 from a starting point already about 6C warmer than the present. Or were you just making that up too? (Hint: It would be just a little higher than a further 6C.)

Plus I see you mention the Vostok cores: It's interesting that you believe that information but not what scientists say about the role of CO2. Why one and not the other?

Guys,

I think Jim Artndt is right. Some theorize that the PETM was caused by huge amounts of Methane beling released from Methane Clathrates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_Gun_Hypothesis

If this theory is correct, then CO2 was not the agent that caused the majority of the warming, but CO2 warming might have been the cause of the Clathrate melting.

Ummm...I would like to know what damage has been done by the current global warming that the Earth is unlikely to "fix" in any timely manner. Is this a reference to the approximate 1 1/2" of sea level rise over the last decade that Dr. Hanson mentioned?

Or is it the damage Gore has done in trapsing around the planet in his GWplane talking about the damage that might happen if GW is real?

Gotta tell ya, there is not a single thing out there in the form of damage directly caused by any GW man-made or not.

tracer 2, the glaciations are driven by Milankovitch cycles (orbital wobbles) whose effect is then amplified by the climate system. Wikipedia has a good basic explanation about the cycles.

Boondocks, during "icehouse" eras (as at present) on the large scale cooling is slow and heating is rapid since ice accumulates slowly but can melt quickly. Short-term sharp cooling events are known to occur, but only during deglaciations when the climate is unstable (e.g. the Younger Dryas). In non-icehouse eras there isn't a general pattern IIRC, except in the case of short-term warm "spikes" like the PETM. They also involve quick warming and slow cooling, although for different reasons.

Note than anon 12:24 pm is wrong about the ability of plants to keep up with CO2 increases. Plants are slow. We have gone from 280 ppm to 380 ppm CO2 in the last 150 years, and there's no evidence that plants have taken up much of the excess; there is a big carbon sink at work, but it's the oceans. Even if plants did respond quickly, bear in mind that not only would they have to absorb the CO2, when the plants die the carbon would have to be sequestered (removed from the climate system) rather than recycled.

Paul: More attempted trickery, eh? How pathetic. Here's the part you deleted:

"The process is clearly indicated by a co-enrichment of heavy S and O isotopes. Different Ba/Sr ratios in the barite concretions indicate dynamics in pore water gradients in the course of diagenetic crystallization. Barite dynamics are controlled by the availability of sulfate and rate of AOM, and thus by the upward flux of methane from the black shale unit. Coexisting isotopically heavy barite and pyrite are introduced as a new proxy for the occurence of AOM."

IOW, if this stuff is present it's easy to spot. Imagine that.

Jim Arndt wrote: "Studies show that water vapor is not increasing thus you can not have a CO2 driven temperature rise. CO2 itself can't raise temperature do to the fact that it is logarithmic in its ability to absorb and radiate heat."

You're exactly wrong on both of those points. WV is going up (as it must due to the warming atmosphere, regardless of whether it's being driven by CO2). On the second one, do look up the meaning of "logarithmic." Can it be true that you've failed to absorb this simple concept despite having been exposed to it dozens of times?

Good link Marie. Either one of us is as equally qualified to say: Shut up! We told you nothing would happen!
I wonder if he would put his electoral freedom on the line today if it doesn't come to pass? I doubt it.
As far as the article goes, it all points to the sun. It warms up, releases CO2, the flora has it good for thousands of years then the sun dims, the oceans cool, the ice comes back.
I'll take the warm period, thanks.

I'm starting to wonder... Where are the cherry-pickers now that most of Eastern US is above normal?

Marie the link you posted just continues to back that some of these global warming fanatics are truly out to lunch and are seriously smoking something. To make such a statement as that journalist did is completely irresponsible. It's all fear based to make us feel guilty and worry that the planet will go to the toilet in a couple decades unless we live like the 1800's. Basically the guy sounds a bit excited that all red states are doomed lol. He likes that koolaid!

I also agree with Jim and Patrick on their talking points. There must be sevaral things in play that can play a much larger role in climate change then CO2 emissions. The earth is always in transition or change, whether that be in an overal warming stage or a switch to a cooling period. There have been significant periods where the globe was warming and periods where the globe was cooling. But CO2 always seems like the scapegoat because humans have a hand in creating it.

Brett, if plant life in the ocean dies wouldn't it release the C02 like leaves in the fall? Am I missing something?

Hi Steve Bloom,

Glad to see you finally talking about Vostok!

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg

Now have a look at the graphs. 110,000 years ago, the weirdest thing happened. CO2 levels were at a maximum, and the world plunged into an ice age - despite the low albedo and other positive feedback.

Even weirder, 15,000 years ago CO2 levels were at a minimum, and the earth warmed up 10C very rapidly. In spite of the high albedo and other negative feedback

This same pattern repeats itself over and over again. Glacial cycles occur in spite of CO2 feedback - not because of it.

AGW will end up in the dustbin of history. Why any self-respecting person would want their named attached to it is beyond me.

The data speaks volumes and will eventually drown (or freeze) excuse the pun! the AGW theory
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.12.27.2007.gif
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
By the way the rate is exceptional look at the slope to from Oct2007 -Jan 2008 it seems to be the greatest since satellite recorded history (that's from 1979) LOL

can't wait to see the Mcintyre/Hansen controversy video soon... but when?

Reply: Just put it on.

""Note than anon 12:24 pm is wrong about the ability of plants to keep up with CO2 increases. Plants are slow""

No Steve, you are wrong

Marine algae and phytoplankton are very fast, look at how fast polluted waters can have a algae bloom or red tide.
The author of this paper thinks carbon is sequestered by plants, slowly, and that accounts for the reduction in CO2. And the author of this paper is wrong.
If CO2 were the only fertilizer that plants needed, there would be a massive algae bloom.

Mr. Bllom,

You do a great job of cutting and pasting without any knowledge of what you are cutting and pasting. Here, I'll repost the relevant part.

Complete depletion of sulfate within the black shale sequence promotes the remobilization of biogenic barite. Barium is released, diffuses upwards and reprecipitates as authigenic barite."

Once the barium is released and mobilized, all bets are off as to the age and/or origin of the barium. The barium could be yesterday's dead plankton, a thousand years old, or 100 million years old. There is no way of knowing in which stratigraphic layer the barium was originally deposited. Remobilization of the barium nullifies any age relationships and thus the premise of the paper referred to in this blog.

Patrick, in another entry of this blog, you keep talking about Colorado being cold. It's cold, bitterly cold, but you gave us a link with a 15-day forecast and you say it was going to get even colder. True, there will be some colder air around for New Year's Eve, but after that, a big warm up and no harsh cold in sight beyond that... what's your point?

Reply: much of the lower 48 will be cut off from any arctic air over the next couple of weeks with a lot of Pacific air moving in across the states. There will a shot of Arctic air into the Plains and East around New Years Day, but it will be a brief shot and that is it for awhile. Brett

Hi Guys,

Steve B CO2 alone can't cause warming, it requires feedback from other sources namely water vapor. Logarithmic means the more it absorbs the less it can absorb, this is fact. No recent warming is 6 years while CO2 is slightly rising, please explain how this research is wrong and you are right.

From R.A. Pielke Sr.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/12/27/third-follow-up-to-climate-metric-reality-check-3-evidence-for-a-lack-of-water-vapor-feedback-on-the-regional-scale/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/12/18/climate-metric-reality-check-3-evidence-for-a-lack-of-water-vapor-feedback-on-the-regional-scale/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/12/17/reality-check-2-long-term-sea-surface-temperature-trend-anomalies-and-ocean-heat-content-trends/

others
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/absorbspec.gif
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/absorb.jpg

I think that does, have a nice day!

Emiliano,

The online long term forecasts change rather dramatically around here from day to day. I see (as Brett mentioned) that accuweather is now predicting a return to normal temperatures - but I will believe it when I see it. There is a lot of snow and ice, and with the sun at a low angle it is very difficult to get temperatures out of the 30's without a strong chinook.

Reply: True Patrick, the overall pattern can warm, but if you live in in a high elevation valley with deep snow cover and light winds its gonna stay cold this time of year.