Positive effects of Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Sadistic-Savior, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, it is not an article, it is the Science they used to suipport their assertion and you have been given a link to it many times...

    Let's try again:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
     
  2. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This isn't the biggest piece of peer-reviewed crap I've ever read. But it's up there. Here's the first important question we need to ask:

    Why does a scientist submit a climate paper to a medical journal?

    Think about that question as we review the contents.

    1. Deceptive graphs. RRS refer to figure 1 in the text as an example showing the Earth's average temperature. But the figure itself shows only the proxy temperature of the Sargasso Sea: it's local data, not global data. They even have the gall to claim that the Sargasso data is "illustrative of most locations." Gee, if you actually wanted to illustrate most locations, why wouldn't you use global data? Global data is easily available, but RRS don't use that, because global data does not reinforce the lie that they want to tell and the deception they want you to believe. Disgraceful.

    2. Glacier shortening. RRS post a graph showing glaciers started shortening around 1800, coinciding with the beginning of widespread use of coal for steam engines. That's because when you burn coal you get soot, which is black, and when soot falls on a white glacier it absorbs a lot of heat. RRS say this means glacier shortening is unaffected by CO2. If you cannot see the non-sequitur, you need to go back to school.

    3. Strawman arguments. Figure 3 shows Arctic air temperature compared to fossil fuel emissions. (Once again, as in Fail #1, why not use global temps? They're certainly available. Answer: global temps don't have the same deceptive effect as cherry-picking, so RRS do the cherry-picking instead.) But why are we comparing to fossil fuel emissions rather than CO2 fraction in the air? It's the CO2 in the air that causes global warming directly, while emissions only cause warming to the extent that those emissions are not absorbed by the oceans and soils. The CO2 air fraction is easily available, and RRS again do not use the data. Reason? They're being deliberately deceptive again.

    4. Non-Science disguised as science. Referring to figure 3, why are RSS using this bizarre solar proxy composed of things like solar rotation rate? In what way can solar rotation rate possibly affect Earth's climate? Answer: it can't. But if it correlates with Earth's climate, the statistics are enough for RSS, and (*)(*)(*)(*) the physics. Of course, actual reconstructions of the Total Solar Irradiance are easily available, and TSI is the only known mechanism by which the Sun warms the Earth.

    Of course RRS know this, so in figure 5 they falsely claim that the red line in figure 3 is "total solar irradiance". It's not. They're lying.

    That's just the first page and a half. I could go on, but you get the idea. If you want to defend these lies and deceptions, Gaar, I await the opportunity to debate. If you don't, I'll understand. But in the latter case I would expect you not to refer to this crap again.

    Oh, and why would a scientist submit a climate paper to a medical journal?

    It's because he wants to avoid meaningful peer review. I wonder how many climatologists the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has on its editorial board?
     
  3. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sure he does. People know that. If somebody doubt he can search Inet.
     
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What peer reviewed science. Are you referring to that mix of Astrology and claptrap you posted from Tallbloke?? Because i hate to break the news to you but Astrology is not science.


    Thank-you to Poor Debater for the masterly analysis of the paper - it was well worth reading

    Now are we going to go down the road of "It wash't the paper itself but the science they used" crap again?

    The analysis is flawed and even if it wasn't these are only a tiny handful of people out of tens of thousands who HAVE looked at the science very very carefully and come to an opposite conclusion.

    And before you query "tens of thousands" I will remind you this is a GLOBAL scientific endeavour crossing multiple disciplines
     
  5. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've searched and haven't found one. Perhaps you could rush in to fill the gap.
     
  6. Gaar

    Gaar New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's start with this one...

    Could it be just bad data? So you want your Man Made Global Warming theory to rest on data that is being shown to be not only bad but not even from locations they are said to be from?!?!?!?!?

    Give me a break!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/13/how-bad-is-the-global-temperature-data/

    One example of how good or bad this works is from Maine. Volunteers completed surveys of the United States Historic Climate Network (USHCN) temperature stations in Maine for Anthony Watts surface station evaluation project. The survey determined that every one of the stations in Maine was subject to microclimate or urbanization biases. One station especially surprised the surveyors, Ripogenus Dam, a station that was officially closed in 1995. Despite being closed in 1995, USHCN data for this station is publicly available until 2006!

    Part of the USHCN data is created by a computer program called “filnet” which estimates missing values. According to the NOAA, filnet works by using a weighted average of values from neighboring stations. In this example, data was created for a no longer existing station from surrounding stations, which in this case as the same evaluation noted were all subject to microclimate and urban bias, no longer adjusted for. Note the rise in temperatures after this before the best sited truly rural station in Maine was closed. GISS does display this station that did incorporate the “filnet” data input for missing months although as noted they stopped its plot in 1995 which NOAA extended artificially to at least 2006.

    How can we trust NOAA/NASA/Hadley assessment of global changes given these and the other data integrity issues? Given that Hadley has destroyed old original data because they were running out of room in their data cabinet, can we ever hope to reconstruct the real truth?

    As one of our scientist readers noted: “Well, the 999.9s you showed me today sure opened my eyes…the ramifications are stunning. I knew about the drop-off of stations before but never that existing station reports are so full of gaps or that they’re getting temperature readings from “ghost” stations. This is, as you have said, GARBAGE.

    and...

    http://www.newtimesslo.com/commentary/3882/bad-data-underlie-global-warming-claim/

    It must be kept in mind that since it is not possible to do scientific experiments and testing with making certain types of climates, the climate modelers have to rely on theories instead. The closest the meteorologists have come to a laboratory is to record temperature readings for a relatively few decades, which then have been used to predict temperatures and climate for a hundred years into the future. The common sense question is: How well have the meteorologists predicted the weather a week into the future? What about one year into the future? A decade? One hundred years?
    What about the data, then? To substantiate the claim for global warming, accurate historical data must be available. Weather data has been recorded and collected by the National Weather Service. Its U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is comprised of 1221 reporting stations within the 48 contiguous United States. These historical records generally include the period from 1900 to 1995. Each station is subject to certain quality control and homogeneity testing and adjustment procedures. If the data are not reported, data from other nearby sites are substituted. Obviously, this can and has introduced major errors in temperature readings.
    In addition, the National Weather Service through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has established standards for the proper siting of the reporting stations and the sensors. They define five classes of sites:
    Class I - Sensors are located at least 100 meters (330 feet) from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots.
    Class 2 - Artificial heating sources are located 30 meters (100 feet) away from sensor.
    Class 3 - Artificial heating sources are located 10 meters (33 feet) away from sensor. Introduces an error of 1 degree C
    Class 4 - Artificial heating sources are less than 10 meters (33 feet) away from sensor. Introduces an error greater than 2 degrees C.
    Class 5 - Temperature sensor located next to or above an artificial heating source, such as a building, rooftop, parking lot, or concrete surface. Introduces an error greater than 5 degrees C.
    I went to observe two of the 1221 climate-reporting stations. The one in Paso Robles has placed the sensor on a concrete pad, with cars parked against the pad and a building next to it. In addition, it is located next to a major city street with constant heavy automobile traffic. Consequently, the readings from this reporting station have been high, showing an error greater than 5 degrees C or approximately 8 degrees F for several years. It is most disturbing to realize that erroneously high readings from stations such as this have been used by climatologists to claim man-caused global warming.
    Cal Poly also has a climate-reporting station. Its sensor is located five feet from the gravel road and 40 feet from a concrete walkway next to buildings. However there are broken-down RVs right next to the sensor. One of them has been sitting there for several years as a heat sink. In addition, there are several chemical test pools between 100 and 200 feet away.
    Both of these stations fail NWS’ own standards and reporting procedures. In fact, research done by meteorologist Anthony Watts of “SurfaceStations.org” shows that almost 90 percent of the 1221 stations report rising temperatures because they are badly sited. It shows that the data have been seriously erroneous. The temperature readings have been consistently too high. The global warming proponents claim that the temperature readings show a trend, not an absolute measurement. However, the reading is a factual finite measurement, and if it is wrong, the interpretation will be wrong as well. They also claim that NOAA takes into account any bias due to the “urban heat island effects”. However, the corrections themselves are very obscure and inaccurate.
    The foundation for the claim for man-made global warming—considering the historical data gathered from San Luis Obispo County’s two reporting stations—is fallacious. Unfortunately, the reported temperature data, not the Earth, are cooked by man.
    ===============================

    So much for your first little rant...
     
  7. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What data, shown to be bad by whom, where? It's easy to throw around claims, if you don't have to support anything you say by the tiniest shred of evidence. Could it be ...

    Ah yes. When your world's-worst-peer-reviewed-paper turns out to be crap, you take your credibility down another notch by citing a blog. If D'Aleo had anything useful to say, why couldn't he pass peer review? Your earlier citation shows that even junk sometimes gets past. Which implies that D'Aleo's work doesn't even rise to that level. And after reading, it doesn't.

    Smokin' Joe's complaint is that around 1990 the GHCN stopped using a lot of weather stations. He implies that's a huge problem. But he doesn't have any actual data that shows it's a problem, so he relies on suggestion and innuendo instead. That's Denier Science for you.

    In fact, if we look at the critical year 1990 when the dropout occurred, we find that the three global temperature datasets that use this data (HADCRUT, GISS, and NCDC) showed cooler global temperatures than the year before, while the two satellite-based global temperature datasets (UAH and RSS) showed warmer global temperatures than the year before. So in spite of D'Aleo's frantic attempts to rely on spin rather than evidence, the evidence shows that reducing the number of stations resulted in a cool bias if anything.

    So what? Every weather station in the world is subject to microclimate biases. That's why we use anomalies instead of raw temps: it removes those biases from the final data. Apparently D'Aleo hasn't the slightest clue as to how these data are actually used. Apparently you don't either.

    AHA! So Smokin' Joe really does know that microclimate biases are adjusted out of the data by using anomalies, and therefore isn't really a problem; but he raised the issue anyway, because he's trying to scare you with a problem that he knows isn't really a problem. That's honesty for you.

    And the procedure he describes for missing temps is actually correct. You fill in the station data using raw data, and remove the bias at the station level. And note, Joe doesn't actually say this procedure is wrong, he just wants you to believe it's wrong without having to lie about it. Triiiicky!

    So Smokin' Joe admits that the filnet data was not actually used in the GISS global data. In other words: this isn't a real problem, but he's spinning like crazy to make you believe it is.

    Fine with me. Let's not use HADCRUT3 (which shows less warming than GISS) because of data issues. Let's all agree to use GISS instead, which D'Aleo admits doesn't have those issues. Ooops! GISS shows more warming than Hadley!

    Or even better, let's not use any of those and use BEST instead. You remember BEST, don't you? Anthony Watts himself said, as they were doing their work, that BEST was going to resolve all of those issues and produce a dataset that was unimpeachable. And BEST found just as much warming as NOAA and GISS, and more than HADCRUT.

    So it looks like GISS got the right answer after all.

    A flat-out lie. Hadley didn't publish their data for a long time because of permission issues. Those have now been resolved and the data is now available.
     
  8. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh great, another non-peer-reviewed blog. And this one's by a Republican politician. Well that's certainly the first person I'd ask about climate change ...

    False. The IR absorption of CO2 has been measured in the lab numerous times. Gas laws have been tested in the lab, heat transfer has been tested in the lab, the Beer-Lambert Law has been tested in the lab, Navier-Stokes equations have been tested in the lab, the melting temperature of ice has been tested in the lab, the freezing point of water has been tested in the lab. It's impossible to find a single component of climate science that has not been tested in the lab, in the field, or both. But hey, he's a politician. We expect him to lie.

    Weather is not climate. I cannot predict where the ball will fall on the next spin of roulette. But I can predict, with great confidence, that over a 1 year span the house will win.

    Says who? In what peer-reviewed paper, in what journal? More allegations in search of evidence.

    Which is why we use anomalies. <sigh...>. Doesn't this guy read? Don't you, Gaar?

    It is even more disturbing to realize that guys this ignorant run for public office.

    Once again: use of anomalies eliminates these biases.

    No they don't. They just fall into Category 5. Which is apparently only the reason Matt chose those stations to visit.

    Peer-reviewed research done by Anthony Watts -- in his one-and-only peer-reviewed paper -- shows that the worst-sited stations have exactly the same amount of warming as the best sited stations. In other words, use of anomalies actually does remove those biases.

    But it's not wrong. As Anthony Watts himself has now admitted.

    First, they're not obscure at all: they're right out in public, if you'd care to look. And second, who says they're inaccurate? In what peer-reviewed paper, in what journal?

    Yet another baseless allegation without a shred of evidence to support it.

    Yeah, I'm sure the loss of Arctic sea ice must be because of all those parking lots and air conditioners in the Arctic Ocean.

    Epic fail.
     
  9. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is what you should have started from instead of the falling into the flat denial and spitting garbage I had to snip.

    I will do basic google search for you if and only if then you will accept that you are not capable of doing basic google search.
     
  10. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have done a search, and not just with google. There is a CO2 proxy from the Ashgillian (Yapp and Poths 1996). It shows a high value, but with no specification as to what part of the Ashgillian. If the CO2 data point dates to the pre-Hirnantian Ashgillian, then this is consistent with a well-known mid-Ashgillian global warm event.

    Brenchly et. al. 1995, Krump et. al 1995, Gibbs et. al. 1997 and Villas et. al. 2002 all have sensible climate models for the Hirnantian, but all indicate (based on geological evidence) the glaciation was caused by a rapid lowering of CO2 levels. So of course you're not going to believe that for political reasons.

    So if you can find a well-dated proxy from the Hirnantian specifically, please let us all know. We're dying to find out.
     
  11. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gaar claimed:

    &#8220;CO2 was 15 times higher than now in the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation&#8221;

    You claimed: It wasn't. Do you have a peer-reviewed reference that says it was?&#8221;
    And you based your response on that claim.

    I claimed that anybody could search Inet and see that Gaar did have a peer-reviewed reference and thus I could snip your response as invalid and misleading.

    Do you accept that Gaar had a peer-reviewed reference , and thus my claim that he did and anybody can search the Inet to see that is all true?
     
  12. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And since Gaar does not actually have such a reference, and has never provided one, he is indeed wrong.

    Meanwhile, I have posted four references indicating that CO2 levels in that glaciation were lower than that, based in part on the massive carbonate deposits laid down just before said glaciation. And Gaar has not posted a single reference refuting any of that.

    Not at all. I strongly suspect that the only thing Gaar has to go on is Yapp and Poths, which is consistent with the mid-Ashgill warm period. I have seen not one reference from either you or Gaar that supports Gaar's actual claim of high CO2 during the glaciation.

    This is yet another case of deniers making a claim without evidence to support it. So far you and Gaar have provided zero, count 'em, zero, peer-reviewed references on this point.
     
  13. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
  14. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're repeating yourself, Quizzy. And you still have not posted a reference that supports anything you're saying.

    So far the reference count score for the Hirnantian glaciation is :
    PD: 5
    Gaar & Quizzy (combined): 0

    You'd better start posting something peer reviewed. Otherwise, you lose.
     
  15. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Let me bring on the srceen my refute which also includes refutes of 2 other posters Hoosier8 and PRA1

    "You, Hoosier8 used sarcasm and you, Hoosier8 hit the target.

    So far all negative effects of the fantasized global warming Agwists could come up are tropical diseases.

    So far only tropical disease Agwists could come up is Norwegian scabies.

    The appeal to pity works in this way:
    First faked pictures of Chernobyl children are posted, than the conclusion that Nuclear power plantare bad is coming.
    First pics of scabies are posted then conclusion about fantasized global warming and its negative effects are made.

    So what you said sarcastically is also all truth.

    RPA1 had already debunked it:
    “Looks gross...but I don't see what it has to do with global warming. Looks like its mostly a hygiene problem. Perhaps you Aussies ought to take more showers, wash your linens or something.”

    It is also sarcasm and true. Indeed scabies is not a tropical decease. It is a scare only for OWS protesters, Aussies and other warmists who ignore hygiene and have sex with animals or with whatever comes across. It is not an effect of warming, but it is effect of life style, lack of basic hygiene of soul and body the scientific majorities are forcing on us.

    Florida the US is tropical and subtropical, It is a resort, a place of vacation and retirement, of gross harvests of food with little efforts. So far Obama supporters have a difficult time to change it to fit their life style. No tropical diseases so far.

    At the same time at the North one can hear about flue shuts in winter, and cold bringing cold deceases, I am not even talking about freezing to death and no food under the snow. Even birds migrate to tropics and subtropics from our places. Once in a while I escape to FL, too.


    It is warmists who lie

    and lie

    and lie


    and lie


    all the time

    and try to bully others and play ""gotchya" game."

    Let me bring to attention of mods that in you claim that this refute is the same as saying "I fink it mite be a lye DUH!" . Let me point that no claim of warmists can be refuted without getting a refute deleted. Only saying "I fink it mite be a lye DUH!" will not be deleted but I cannot move myself to saying that, it is a very broken English.
     
  16. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63

    I will do basic google search for you if and only if then you will accept that you are not capable of doing basic google search.http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...effects-global-warming-34.html#post1060937077

    Please notice, that everyone who is interested in the subject has already googled. You are the only one left. But you are not interested in the subject, are you?
     
  17. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You lose then. I am completely capable of doing a search. And Gaar doesn't have a peer-reviewed leg to stand on. Neither do you.
     
  18. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If I post one will you accept that you are not capable of doing a search?

    on my side to make it fair, if I don't I will not only accept that I've lost but I will also accept and appollogize for bluffing, bullying and etc.
     
  19. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it's
    A) original peer-reviewed research (i.e., the direct research and not a secondhand citation); and
    B) confined specifically to the glaciated period, i.e., the early Hirnantian, with sufficient precision to eliminate non-glaciated periods;

    then, yes.
     
  20. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It is not the searching that is really the problem though

    It is the ability to differentiate between a diamond and elephant dung that is the real issue

    When people link to pseudo astrology and try to tell you it is science you know there is a problem
     
  21. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Let me make the conditions clear for myself one more time:

    A) An abstract or a page in an article in a peer reviewed magazine including authors and date and repeating statement made by Gaar in all its essence and spirit and denied by you, like this one as an example:

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3545034
    Crowley, T. J., and S. K. Baum (1995), Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels, J. Geophys. Res., 100(D1), 1093&#8211;1101, doi:10.1029/94JD02521.

    If I do follow these guide lines and the example, would it suffice?

    B) The Gaar&#8217;statement you denied was made not about Hirnantian, but about Late Ordovician glaciation. It may be the same thing for scientists, but I am not a scientist, so I need to make sure I am on the same page, and I search for Late Ordovician glaciation stated by Gaar, but not Hirnantian not stated by him.

    Since you have brought in some confusion about Hirnantian, I may change conditions:
    1. If I cannot find such a peer reviewed publication, I will not only accept that I've lost but I will also accept and apologize for bluffing, bullying and etc.

    2. You on other side do not have to accept that you cannot do a search. I will accept you still can do.
    Instead you will attempt to make next 20 posts void of personal insults addressed to skeptics and even to such deniers as I am.
    I know it is a harsh condition, but I could already post a link if you did not bring the confusing Hirnantian in. All I need is to see is a fair attempt, I am not asking for achieving the result and only in 20 posts.
    If you cannot do, I still will use the original condition, - you only will accept that you can&#8217;t do search.

    Let&#8217;s do it, at last?
     
  22. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not this particular example, since "late Ordovician" encompasses over 20 million years, including known warm periods, and Gaar's statement refers specifically to the late Ordovician glaciation, a period of only a few hundred thousand years.

    So you need a proxy CO2 measurement that is confined not merely to the Hirnantian, but to the early Hirnantian (since the late Hirnantian was not glaciated).

    But other than that, yes, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

    Yup, that's the same thing. The Hirnantian is the last stage of the Ordovician, in which the glaciation occurred. See the Wikipedia article on "Ordovician" for a diagram of how it fits in.

    Sounds fair to me.
     
  23. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3545034
    Crowley, T. J., and S. K. Baum (1995), Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels, J. Geophys. Res., 100(D1), 1093&#8211;1101, doi:10.1029/94JD02521.

    ?

    is it the diffrence between late and Late the problem?


    ?

    I did not sign up to see wiki or read.

    Let me make sure &#8211; I need to search for

    Either for:

    1. late
    2. Ordovician

    3. glaciation

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3545034
    Crowley, T. J., and S. K. Baum (1995), Reconciling 1. late 2. Ordovician (440 Ma) 3. glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels, J. Geophys. Res., 100(D1), 1093&#8211;1101, doi:10.1029/94JD02521.


    Or for
    1. early
    2. Hirnantian

    Correct?
     
  24. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, the problem is that the Ordovician was 45 million years long, including 7 distinct stages, and during nearly all of that time there were no glaciers. The only glaciation occurred in a very brief period, lasting less than a million years, in the early Hirnantian. The Hirnantian was the last and shortest of the 7 Ordovician stages.

    So yes, the Hirnantian glaciation was in the late Ordovician, just like Los Angeles in in the western United States. But If you have only one altitude measurement for all of the "western United States", that doesn't tell you much about the altitude of Los Angeles. It may not tell you anything at all.

    And if you only have a CO2 proxy measurement that's in the "late Ordovician", we have no idea whether that measurement is in the 1 million year glaciated period, or in the other 21.5 million years of the late Ordovician, most of which was warm.


    Not quite. "Early Hirnantian" would work. There was only one glaciation in the late Ordovician, so if you can find something that nails it down specifically to the glaciated period, you're OK. That would be 444.9 million years ago, plus or minus 0.5 million years.

    But if you've got something like 446 million years ago, plus or minus 2 million years, even though that overlaps the glaciated period, most of that 4 million year interval was non-glaciated. So you need to find something with a smaller error than that. Otherwise, I'd be justified in saying there's less than a 1-in-4 chance that it was really a record of the glaciated period.
     
  25. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    let me remind you


    Gaar stated :
    You refuted:
    I stated : "Sure he does. Anybody can search Inet and see that he does"


    It is about if Gaar has a peer-reviewed reference that says it was (CO2 15 times higher than now in the Ordovician-Silurian) or he does not.

    The article clearly confirms to the essence and spirit of Gaar's statement.

    It states

    1. there was glaciation
    2. in late Ordovician
    3. CO2 was 14 times more than today

    It is not about if or not
    there was glaciation
    It is not about if or not
    in late Ordovician
    It is not about if or not
    CO2 was 14 times more than today

    It is not
    if there were glaciers during 4 years or 4 million years or not.

    it is not about if the Gaar's statement makes any sense or not.

    I never signed up to learn garbage or sort garbage. I signed up to show that he has garbage when you claim he does not, but only you have.

    It is about if Gaar's statement has a peer reviewed reference or not and can such a reference be easily searched on Inet or not.


    It is also about an honest debate and if people see and estimate honesty and decency or not. I hope they do. I hope they searched the net and have easily found no lesser amount of peer reviewed references than I have.
     

Share This Page