How you were swindled from the truth - the great global warming swindle lies debunked for good

Originally posted by melatonin

Not so. There are periods where GHGs seem to lead temperature (e.g. PETM and mid-cretaceous).

Uh uh... What is this, melatonin leaving out the facts again?

First of all, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Global Warming has been associated with the release 1400–2800 Giga tons of methane.

There was a triggering mechanism for this event which could have been a gradual global warming event, comet impact, or volcanism and ocean current redistribution and erosion at continental slopes.

Since whatever triggered this event released 1400–2800 Giga tons of methane... not CO2..... your whole inference is wrong due to the fact that CO2 did not play any mayor role on that event.

gsa.confex.com...

As for your inference on the cause for the mid-cretaceous event...

Explanations evoking ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns radically different from today have been proposed to explain the climate of the mid-Cretaceous; however, there is no scientific consensus on how the Mid-Cretaceous warm climate came about.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

But maybe melatonin wants to write his own thesis explaining to the scientific community why he is so sure that it was GHGs which caused the warming in this event.

Originally posted by melatonin
Not so. This is actually supportive of a GHG effect. As this is when most heat escapes from the surface. The GHGs are helping to keep this heat in the troposphere.

For water vapor that is true. Anyone and everyone knows that low lying clouds at night poduce warmer temperatures at night, but it is at night that GHGs also release the heat they have been trapping during the day.

Originally posted by melatonin
I feel dirty posting from foxnews, but hey-ho.

You excerpt from Gore and Mann et al, you shouldn't feel dirty at all, hey-ho-ho.

Originally posted by melatonin
Who says the oceans are cooling?

I excerpted some articles that point to that happening melatonin.

Recent cooling of the upper ocean

John M. Lyman

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA

Josh K. Willis

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

Gregory C. Johnson

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA


Abstract
We observe a net loss of 3.2 (±1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

Received 26 May 2006; accepted 11 August 2006; published 20 September 2006.

www.agu.org...

Originally posted by melatonin
Muaddib, remember there is only one period in 400 million years or so where there seems to be a real lack of relationship, however, as Berner states, it is very likely that even this period is entirely consistent. We just need higher resolution data.

Actually, it is you who has to remember there are more than one such occurrences. First of all, there is the lag, which happened in this warming cycle we are going through, by which CO2 lags temperature from 260 years to 800 years.

BTW, is Berner and you claiming you know for a fact what higher resolution data will show? That's a bit arrogant.

Originally posted by melatonin
As for the gagging stuff. I think you have a few nutcases sending death-threats, a weatherwoman who seems to be a bit noughty, and a scientific community that doesn't like people who distort, lie, and spread disinformation, like Tim Ball, a known liar. The latter are using a form of peer-pressure. Yeah, peer-pressure to be an honest broker of science is such a bad thing, heh.

Well, apparently what you call the "scientific community" doesn't like itself because they have been lying to each other and others for decades....

There is no real "scientific concensus", some scientists have been in cahoots with environmentalists and political figures to spread their propaganda....now they found a way to spread their propaganda, and are trying to gag those in the "scientific community" who disagree with them.

Yet if the current U.S. administration decides to side with one of the theories on Climate Change the environlunatics claim they are being gagged and don't say a peep about what they have been doing for years to many of the AGW skeptics.

There have been quite a few cases of anthropogenic Global warming skeptics who have lost their jobs and funds because the environlunatics want to get rid of the skeptics.

Scientists that find any natural relation to the climate or global warming do not get the grants that AGW scientists get, and yes there have been some scientists who doubt the AGW claim and they have had to take grants from oil companies... It is for certain that environlunatic groups and most in the political arena are not going to give grants to any research that does not blame CO2 and mankind for Climate Change. AGW is nothing more than a political tool nowadays, nothing more and nothing less.

Originally posted by melatonin
So, in one post, we have two incorrect statements (CO2 always lags; night time warming anti-GHG), a misinterpretation (I stated something about Clark having only one paper), and the obligatory 440million year issue.

Same old, same old, eh?

LOL, so now the lagging of CO2 is an incorrect statement?... Wow, the propaganda surely keeps on coming from some trying to dismiss the facts...

And lets see what the real scientists say about GHG having to do with night time warming...

Greenhouse warming, in which heat is trapped by gases from fossil
fuel burning, occurs both day and night and cannot alone explain
the trend, they say.

www.columbia.edu...


[edit on 8-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by melatonin
Who says the oceans are cooling?

I excerpted some articles that point to that happening melatonin.

Recent cooling of the upper ocean

John M. Lyman

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA

Josh K. Willis

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

Gregory C. Johnson

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA

www.agu.org...

Don't you love it when a cunning plan comes together?

Correction to “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean”

Josh K. Willis1, John M. Lyman2,3, Gregory C. Johnson2 and John Gilson4

Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract.

Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

oceans.pmel.noaa.gov...



[edit on 8-8-2007 by melatonin]

OK, If you haven't realised I'm doing this bit by bit, next...

PETM is suggested to be due to an emission of methane clathrates, yes?

I'll wait till we sort this before moving on.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I have asked you to support your claim. I have presented one quote that I personally transcribed from the documentary that speaks to the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature, as that was the one I clearly remembered. If it wasn't the one you were specifically focusing on, I'm soooo very sorry.

If you want me to transcribe a whole 10 or so minute slot, I'm sorry dude, I have better things to do. It was your claim, you should support it. Same for muaddib.

Originally posted by melatonin
I can only go by Inconvenient Truth, which was also what your thread focused on.

He says during the 650,000 year data:

"the relationship is actually very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others. And that is when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperatures get warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside"

OK, sounds a bit amateurish, but he's about right. He doesn't say CO2 causes glacial warming, just that when there is more CO2, it gets warmer, which it does. CO2 contributed as a positive feedback. Just like water vapour is now. And I know you accept WV affects climate

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So what did he say before that, and what was he referring to?

well, he said a lot of things before that, and I don't think I'll transcribe it all, heh.
He was referring to the 650,000 year data for temperature and CO2.

Sounds sort of like:

Originally posted by melatonin
Look, you seem to want this much more convoluted than it need be.

[cliche]What a tangled web we weave.[/cliche]

Are you really going to make me crop the video segment and youtube it for you to give in on this one??

Anyways, his film is a thesis, and the part of it in question here is one of it's many arguments. If we could ever get past this elements perhaps I could get on to his many other fallacies distortions theories fear-mongering and exaggerations...

[edit on 8-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

what? Look, you said this:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What about Gore claiming that the HUGE line graphs prove that CO2 drives temp? As long as you can admit that Gore too is a BS artist is all I've been shooting for...

Support it. Or give it up.

If you are claiming that Gore says that CO2 drives temperatures during the line graph part of his talk, support it. The quote I provided is from that exact section, it is actually from just before he jumps on the ACME Goreliftomater, after that he just shows where CO2 will be in the near future.

What he is saying is that CO2 is a GHG, and therefore causes warming. Or in his words, 'when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperatures get warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside'.

That is true. That is supported by all major scientific organisation, the IPCC, and the vast majority of climate scientists. More GHGs = higher temps. That is not BS, that is the scientific position, backed by very simple physics that we have known about for well over 100 years.

Just for you:



You see, there is a subtlety and complexity that he understands, that you fail to. During glacial cycles, CO2 does not drive temperature, it is part of a positive feedback system. Which means it contributes to the warming, it amplifies it. Drives it? No. And Gore does not say it does, he says it is very complicated, well, for some I s'pose it is. Orbital variations drive warming during ice-ages, GHGs act as +ve feedback.

However, that doesn't mean GHGs can't drive climate. In fact, they can. If GHGs are released into the atmosphere in massive amounts, they will drive warming, just like the did during the PETM. And we are doing just that, to levels higher than for 650,000 years.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Don't you love it when a cunning plan comes together?

Oh wait a second, so now extrapolating data from different equipments results in large biases?...

Humm, i wonder how many of the data extrapolated through Mann et al and NASA have the same biases and errors....

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, If you haven't realised I'm doing this bit by bit, next...

PETM is suggested to be due to an emission of methane clathrates, yes?

I'll wait till we sort this before moving on.

Melatonin, don't try to back out now, you were wrong, there was a triggering cause for the PETM, and one of the possible causes is gradual global warming before methane levels rose suddenly. It could also have been a comet impact, or volcanism.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Melatonin, don't try to back out now, you were wrong, there was a triggering cause for the PETM, and one of the possible causes is gradual global warming before methane levels rose suddenly. It could also have been a comet impact, or volcanism.

Back out, heh.

Yeah, volcanism....releasing tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is one idea that lead to the release of clathrates

High-resolution records of the late Paleocene thermal maximum
and circum-Caribbean volcanism: Is there a causal link?
T. J. Bralower
D. J.Thomas

J. C. Zachos
M. M. Hirschmann*
U. Röhl
H. Sigurdsson
E.Thomas
D. L. Whitney*

ABSTRACT
Two recently drilled Caribbean sites contain expanded sedimentary records of the late Paleocene thermal maximum, a dramatic global warming event that occurred at ca. 55 Ma. The records document significant environmental changes, including deep-water oxygen deficiency and a mass extinction of deep-sea fauna, intertwined with evidence for a major episode of explosive volcanism. We postulate that this volcanism initiated a reordering of ocean circulation that resulted in rapid global warming and dramatic changes in the Earth’s environment.

Although, that is not the only:

Oxygen-isotope data from this section record a gradual warming of the surface and thermocline waters of ca. 2 ◦C prior to the putative methane-dissociation event and dramatic temperature rise (ca. 4 ◦C). This more subtle and gradual warming event has been attributed to regional volcanism in the North Atlantic and/or Caribbean (Eldholm & Thomas 1993; Bralower et al . 1997). An alternative hypothesis, championed particularly by Katz et al . (2001), links the critical phase change within the gas-hydrate body to seismic activity causing mechanical disruption of the sedimentary prism in a number of places along the continental margin of eastern North America.

Jenkyns, (2003), Phil. Trans. Roy Soc A, 361, 1885+

So, it could have been intitiated by CO2 from volcanic activity, or from seismic activity. However, even the PETM event itself may have been volcanic in nature. It was either volcanic or clathrates.

What we do know is that large amounts of carbon was released into the atmosphere. Now, yeah, it was probably originally methane, however, the half-life of methane is really short:

The geochemical fingerprint of methane is singular in that it is characterized by extremely low carbon-isotope ratios (δ13C ∼ 60 % or less): rapid introduction of this material into the oceans and atmosphere, and its subsequent near-immediate oxidation to CO2, leaves an obvious geochemical trace as well as potentially leading to global warming. Such effects, on millennial time-scales, have been postulated for the Quaternary of the Californian continental margin, based on both carbon-isotope changes in foraminifera (Kennett et al . 2000) and biomarkers in the sediments that indicate the former presence of aerobic and anaerobic methanotrophs (Hinrichs et al . 2003). Here the focus is on similar but apparently much larger events many tens of millions of years in the past.

Jenkins (2003)

Which means the warming event was predominately mediated by CO2. The release lasted for 10-20 thousand years, the warm phase lasted for over 100,000 years. This was essentially a CO2 mediated event. Whichever way you look at it, it was certainly a GHG mediated event, clearly leading an increase in temperature.

CH4 + 2OH ---> CO2 + 2H20

Which is why we generally talk of GtC, as the CH4 bceomes carbon dioxide quite rapidly, which then hangs around for a very long time. 2000-5000 GtC released over 10000-20000 years, CO2 becoming 2000ppm to 3000ppm, a 10'C increase in temps. Maintained for 100,000 years. With the first emissions of CH4, CO2 would rise as well. No lag.

In fact, we are releasing GHGs at a faster rate than during the PETM.
The PETM also led to mass extinctions, crucially acidifying the oceans via CO2, just like we are now.

www.terradaily.com...

The Jenkyns article is interesting, as it outlines quite a few events like this i.e., GHGs appearing to lead to warming on geological timescales. For instance, the Permo-Triassic boundary:

Hence, any change in global temperatures at the onset of the Mesozoic Era, either gradual or rapid, and any possible relationship with the carbon cycle, is as yet unknown. Notable, however, is an association with the formation of a large igneous province, namely the Siberian Traps, suggesting that effusion of volcanogenic CO2 may have had a significant impact on climate at this time (Renne et al . 1995), and indeed could have triggered dissociation of gas hydrates through warming of bottom waters.

Jenkyns (2003)

Triassic-Jurassic:

The Triassic–Jurassic boundary (ca. 200 Ma, after the time-scale of P´alfy et al . 2000) is marked by a major mass extinction and is characterized by palaeobotanical evidence for global warming. Such evidence derives from studies of changes in leaf morphology to more dissected forms as well as decreases in stomatal density and stomatal index in fossil plant cuticle from Greenland and Sweden: the changes observed have been taken to imply a fourfold increase in atmospheric CO2 over this interval (McElwain et al . 1999).

....

Detailed modelling by Beerling & Berner (2002) suggests that methane dissociation may be required to explain the carbon-isotopic and documented temperature response. They suggest that volcanism from the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province released some 8000–9000 GtC as CO2 and that dissociation of gas hydrate released another 5000 GtC as methane. In this model the initial negative carbonisotope excursion is assumed to take place over ca. 70 ka, in line with other putative methane-release events.

Jenkyns (2003)

I hope you now see the relevance of your favoured Pingo-like structure clathrate study

There's more, but I have a bed calling me. So we have three events proposed where volcanism lead to CO2 emissions, which led to release of clathrates and a massive increase in CO2 from the oxidation of CH4.

Essentially, these events are proposed to be GHG-mediated, and generally, CO2. As CH4 don't last very long ya know

So, CO2 does not always lag temperatues. But that's not what I said anyway, heh, I said GHGs do not always lag temps.

Attention to detail is a must

So, back out? Not likely...

[edit on 8-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh wait a second, so now extrapolating data from different equipments results in large biases?...

When the data is giving systematic biases, it will give erroneous results. That is what the original authors found.

So, no cooling. It was a consequence of poorly calibrated equipment, and highlights why taking one single anomalous study at face value is a risky approach

[edit on 9-8-2007 by melatonin]

Umm so am I now inclined to believe that all the glaciers that were melting were photoshopped.

Come on people! The earth is changing whether man has anything to do with it or not. Global warming could be myth but it still doesn't change the fact that there is evidence of change.

Double post.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by IMAdamnALIEN]

Originally posted by melatonin

Back out, heh.

Yeah, volcanism....releasing tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is one idea that lead to the release of clathrates

Except for the fact that any major volcanic eruption would have released tons of dust particles into the atmosphere....producing cooling instead of warming... the same should happen if a comet or meteor would have hit Earth. Any large comets or meteors that would have induced warming on Earth, would have caused an ELE much sooner.

So there should only be two possible causes, either large seismic events in the oceans, or gradual global warming.

The PETM is an enigmatic time period, and no one can say for certain what happened. Although evidence sugests that the around 9F warming of the whole Earth took nearly 10,00 years to happen...not to mention the fact that temperatures back then were already 9F warmer than they are today...

The geologic record shows that the resulting greenhouse effect heated the planet as a whole by about 9 F (5 C), in less than 10,000 years.

That temperature increase lasted about 170,000 years, altered the world's rainfall patterns, made the oceans acidic, affected plant and animal life in the seas and on land, and spawned the rise of our modern primate ancestors.

"The PETM is a stunning example of carbon dioxide-induced global warming and stands in contrast to critics who argue that the Earth's temperature is insensitive to increases in carbon dioxide," said Pagani. "Not only did the Earth warm by at least 9F (5C), but it did so during a time when Earth's average temperature was already 9F warmer than today."

www.terradaily.com...

Think about it.... The planet was already 9F warmer than it is now before the event started...then it took nearly 10,000 years for another 9F of warming to occur... hummm...

So yeah, I guess this gives credence to the claim that a mere doubling of CO2 will bring havoc to planet Earth heh melatonin?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Umm so am I now inclined to believe that all the glaciers that were melting were photoshopped.

Come on people! The earth is changing whether man has anything to do with it or not. Global warming could be myth but it still doesn't change the fact that there is evidence of change.

Noone is saying there is no Climate Change in the form of warming occurring. The same thing is happening to other planets and Moons with an atmosphere in the solar system.

What we are trying to find is whether anthropogenic CO2 (or mankind's activities) are the cause of the current warming.

Think about this, during the last 5,000 years, CO2 levels have remained at about 280 ppm, and there have been several periods of cooling and warming...yet CO2 levels did not change much. So how is it that suddenly a 0.01% increase in CO2 is all the cause for the current warming?

Originally posted by Muaddib
Except for the fact that any major volcanic eruption would have released tons of dust particles into the atmosphere....producing cooling instead of warming...

Sulphates rain out pretty quick. CO2 hangs around. It would mask the warming for a while though.

The PETM is an enigmatic time period, and no one can say for certain what happened. Although evidence sugests that the around 9F warming of the whole Earth took 10,00 years...not to mention the fact that temperatures back then were already 9F warmer than they are today...

So yeah, I guess this gives credence to the claim that a mere doubling of CO2 will bring havoc to planet Earth heh melatonin?

Well, first, I never used the PETM period as support for the effects of doubling CO2. Second, a doubling in the current period is suggested to lead to 3'C. Which is not so much compared to the prolonged lower rate of release then. Thirdly, we are emitting GHGs at a faster rate than during the PETM, so it will have a significant effect. We could reach PETM levels in a few hundred years, rather than 10,000-20,000.

But, the PETM is attributed to the action of GHGs. Thus, they do not always lag. Occassionally they lead. In fact, Berner suggests that on geological timescales, CO2 is likely the primary driver of climate. Not sure I would entirely agree, but I guess I should read his book to assess the reasons for this claim. Too much to read though ATM.

Anyway, should I move on?

ABE: this sort of ambiguous statement does not help your cause, Muaddib.

yet CO2 levels did not change much. So how is it that suddenly a 0.01% increase in CO2 is all the cause for the current warming?

What you should say here is that "so how is it that a 0.01% increase in CO2 as total atmospheric concentration is all the cause for the current warming'

Alternatively, 'so how is it that a +30% increase in CO2 is all the cause for the current warming"

Either is better and more correct. Like if we say, there has been a 30% increase in murders in the UK. We wouldn't say there has been a .0001% increase in murders in the UK [as a proportion of the total world population murder rate]. One is just obfuscation. Playing the game of small numbers.

Also, I know very few people who would say it causes all the warming. I thought that after a few months of discussions, you might have understood that by now. Oh well.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

When the data is giving systematic biases, it will give erroneous results. That is what the original authors found.

So, no cooling. It was a consequence of poorly calibrated equipment, and highlights why taking one single anomalous study at face value is a risky approach

Oh riiight, and i guess the fact that for some reason not too long after this was released they found biases in the data...yet for example when Mann gave his Hockey Stick Graph to the IPCC noone, from the so called scientific concensus bothered to check it for years.... Everyone in the "scientific concensus took it at face value and believed it for years... Now we know Mann was wrong, even though some people still try to give credence to Mann's data...

Yeah i guess it is not possible at all that someone pulled some strings because for some reason this finding was plugged really fast with the claim that "oh yeah, the extrapolation of data gave errors"....even though data is extrapolated in such research all the time, and the so called "scientific concensus" is "supposedly" never wrong by finding such errors before the results are released....




[edit on 9-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Why are we talking about Mann? We were talking about Ocean cooling...

The correction to the data shows there is no cooling. It was a result of systematic biases in the source data.

Mann's study has been validated by major scientific organisations, and is entirely consistent with numerous other multi-proxy reconstructions.

Can we try to keep on the issue at hand?

Originally posted by melatonin

Sulphates rain out pretty quick. CO2 hangs around. It would mask the warming for a while though.

For nearly 10,000 years?....

Originally posted by melatonin
.....................
But, the PETM is attributed to the action of GHGs. Thus, they do not always lag. Occassionally they lead. In fact, Berner suggests that on geological timescales, CO2 is likely the primary driver of climate. Not sure I would entirely agree, but I guess I should read his book to assess the reasons for this claim. Too much to read though ATM.

Anyway, should I move on?

Err, CO2 remains in the atmosphere at a rate of from around 50-100 years...yet it took nearly 10,000 years for CO2 levels to cause the warming during the PETM?....

Originally posted by melatonin
Why are we talking about Mann? We were talking about Ocean cooling...

I am talking about the "scientific concensus" finding biases in this data fast, because of course if proven right it would be another big hole in the AGW claim...meanwhile the nearly level graph of Mann was accepted by the "scientific concensus" for years, and not one of the so called "scientific concensus" questioned Mann's data... Yet we know for a fact that Mann was wrong, nomatter how many times you and some others try to claim.

Originally posted by melatonin
The correction to the data shows there is no cooling. It was a result of systematic biases in the source data.

And that's not exactly what they say btw...otherwise they would have removed the research.

They do claim that much of the cooling is because of a bias. But again i have to wonder if that bias was not actually a "pulling of strings" by some.

Originally posted by melatonin
Mann's study has been validated by major scientific organisations, and is entirely consistent with numerous other multi-proxy reconstructions.

Can we try to keep on the issue at hand?

Mann's data has been discredited by hundreds of research data which shows his Hockey Stick Graph [B] was wrong[/B]....

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
For nearly 10,000 years?....

Eh? The warming from a volcanic emission is what has been suggested to have resulted in oceanic changes and subsequent clathrate release.

Err, CO2 remains in the atmosphere at a rate of from around 50-100 years...yet it took nearly 10,000 years for CO2 levels to cause the warming during the PETM?....

I don't think anyone said it took 10,000 years for the warming...

The rate that CO2 remains in the atmosphere depends on the integrity of the removal mechanisms. If it released quickly, the carbon sinks become less effective fairly quickly. Further, the warm oceans would be able to hold much less CO2. It can stay around for a very long time, even tens of thousands of years.

ABE:

Originally posted by Muaddib
And that's not exactly what they say btw...otherwise they would have removed the research.

They do claim that much of the cooling is because of a bias. But again i have to wonder if that bias was not actually a "pulling of strings" by some.

I suggest you read the correction.

Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the
spurious cooling.

The article may be removed in the future, more likely it will remain for deniers to repeatedly regurgitate.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Eh? The warming from a volcanic emission is what has been suggested to have resulted in oceanic changes and subsequent clathrate release.

And a gradual Global Warming event has also been suggested... Check again the link I gave.

Here it is again.
gsa.confex.com...

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't think anyone said it took 10,000 years for the warming...

WOW....some people really and for some reason become blind when they are shown evidence to contradict their claims...

I already gave one example that it took nearly 10,000 years for the warming to occur during the PETM, here is another...

.............
Scientists have known there was significant turnover in mammals during this rapid period of global warming called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, in which temperatures rose by perhaps as much as 10 degrees in the relatively short time span of 10,000 years, then lasting for another 80,000 to 100,000 years, Bloch said.
..............

news.mongabay.com...

Originally posted by melatonin
...............
It can stay around for a very long time, even tens of thousands of years.

Really?...well, you need to present proof to that claim of yours...

Originally posted by melatonin
I suggest you read the correction.

I have. they state that even though they already did corrections to the data, they were still wrong when extrapolating the data.... as i was saying, to me it sounds more like someone really quickly pulled some strings to dismiss this research.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Muaddib]