Slashdot Mirror

This is a very minor point but the paper is wrong about the origin Lord Kelvin's miscalculations of the age of Earth. He made his evaluation of 20 million years using thermal gradients which isn't a good model because Earth has a convective mantle. His assistant John Perry calculated an age of Earth of 2 to 3 billion years using the right model. That is a difference of two orders of magnitude. It's easy to see that radioactivity plays a minor role. An article appeared on GSA Today in January 2007 gives more details, John Perry's neglected critique of Kelvin's age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics.

However even if the paper was wrong about the actual reason for Kelvin's mistake, the paper is right in asserting that the wrong model usually invalidates any calculation derived from it. The difference between the calculations of Perry and Kelvin might be an even better demonstration of this point.

You do realize I'm not in charge of anybody's global warming policy besides my own and there's really no point arguing with me, the only reason I follow the global warming debate at all is to figure out whether I should be buying up tundra for my new beachfront condo development in Nunavut, stay where I am, or flee in panic for the Equator? And that whether I continue to believe solar theories in general and Svensmark in particular are more likely to be correct than the AGW Chicken Littleism depends on whether temperatures keep plummeting until SC24 starts, not what you or anyone else says without producing actual physical evidence?

Still, if your understanding is so shallow that you're still quoting those clowns at RealClimate, first off, may I suggest you widen your knowledge base a bit instead of relying on the Hockey Team idiots, and second off sure you've sucked me in to one more response ok :)

in addition to the lack of trend in GCR

Flat out lie, here. Svensmark uses five different radiation measurement locations to document the 11 year radiation cycle and its remarkably good correlation with solar activity. You want long-term? How about the last 500 million years? We got your last 500 million years right here.

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F1052-5173(2003)013%3C0004:CDOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

Oh, that's right, you think RealClimate is worth parroting, and those nasty geologists, being real scientists, wrote their paper with all big words and equations, waaaaah. Here's a direct link to their pretty picture:

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=display-figures&name=i1052-5173-13-7-4-f02

Far as I'm concerned that conclusively refutes any "lack of trend" argument over a ... uh-oh, I have no idea what the word is for "half-billion-year" ... a very very long time scale indeed. To insist that the last 20 year time period outweighs this is to ignore that the climate system acts as a low pass filter, and that currently warmed oceans are a heat sink. So that argument is functionally identical to comparing the temperature between noon and 2 PM with the solar insolation, and reaching the conclusion that solar radiation decreases the temperature.

It's tricky to explain how a warming caused by decreasing albedo would be stronger at the night-side (dark) of the planet.

It's only tricky if you haven't, you know, actually read the book. If you have not, in fact, read anything beyond the Amazon page for the book you pretend to be reviewing, as apparently RealClimate does not, then only in that case would it be acceptable for you to be unaware that the CRF/climate link is only going to make an observable difference where there's very little background cloud condensation nuclei -- that is, over the oceans. Since we expect a warmer climate to have more water vapour in the atmosphere, we will also expect to form more low level clouds over land, which will reduce the IR cooling during the nights, and thus reduce the diurnal cycle. No trickiness here!

So ... sorry, son, I'm going to have to give your argument a 'D' for 'Insufficient and Unsupported Research'. There definitely are several unproven links in the Svensmark et al. theses ... but you're not even close to them here. And, in any case, if the CERN CLOUD experiment goes as I expect, those links will be pretty much proven by the end of 2010. Which may be almost superfluous at that point anyways, because if SC24 keeps on not happening and temperatures keep plummeting, the discrepancy between AGW models and real life is going to be too big by then for even RealClimate to explain with a straight face.

Interesting times ahead!

You do realize I'm not in charge of anybody's global warming policy besides my own and there's really no point arguing with me, the only reason I follow the global warming debate at all is to figure out whether I should be buying up tundra for my new beachfront condo development in Nunavut, stay where I am, or flee in panic for the Equator? And that whether I continue to believe solar theories in general and Svensmark in particular are more likely to be correct than the AGW Chicken Littleism depends on whether temperatures keep plummeting until SC24 starts, not what you or anyone else says without producing actual physical evidence?

Still, if your understanding is so shallow that you're still quoting those clowns at RealClimate, first off, may I suggest you widen your knowledge base a bit instead of relying on the Hockey Team idiots, and second off sure you've sucked me in to one more response ok :)

in addition to the lack of trend in GCR

Flat out lie, here. Svensmark uses five different radiation measurement locations to document the 11 year radiation cycle and its remarkably good correlation with solar activity. You want long-term? How about the last 500 million years? We got your last 500 million years right here.

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F1052-5173(2003)013%3C0004:CDOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

Oh, that's right, you think RealClimate is worth parroting, and those nasty geologists, being real scientists, wrote their paper with all big words and equations, waaaaah. Here's a direct link to their pretty picture:

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=display-figures&name=i1052-5173-13-7-4-f02

Far as I'm concerned that conclusively refutes any "lack of trend" argument over a ... uh-oh, I have no idea what the word is for "half-billion-year" ... a very very long time scale indeed. To insist that the last 20 year time period outweighs this is to ignore that the climate system acts as a low pass filter, and that currently warmed oceans are a heat sink. So that argument is functionally identical to comparing the temperature between noon and 2 PM with the solar insolation, and reaching the conclusion that solar radiation decreases the temperature.

It's tricky to explain how a warming caused by decreasing albedo would be stronger at the night-side (dark) of the planet.

It's only tricky if you haven't, you know, actually read the book. If you have not, in fact, read anything beyond the Amazon page for the book you pretend to be reviewing, as apparently RealClimate does not, then only in that case would it be acceptable for you to be unaware that the CRF/climate link is only going to make an observable difference where there's very little background cloud condensation nuclei -- that is, over the oceans. Since we expect a warmer climate to have more water vapour in the atmosphere, we will also expect to form more low level clouds over land, which will reduce the IR cooling during the nights, and thus reduce the diurnal cycle. No trickiness here!

So ... sorry, son, I'm going to have to give your argument a 'D' for 'Insufficient and Unsupported Research'. There definitely are several unproven links in the Svensmark et al. theses ... but you're not even close to them here. And, in any case, if the CERN CLOUD experiment goes as I expect, those links will be pretty much proven by the end of 2010. Which may be almost superfluous at that point anyways, because if SC24 keeps on not happening and temperatures keep plummeting, the discrepancy between AGW models and real life is going to be too big by then for even RealClimate to explain with a straight face.

Interesting times ahead!

Ordinary subsidence of the crust can do that (e.g., the modern Mississippi Delta continues to subside and slowly bury old swampland forests in sediment), but sudden drops due to earthquakes are well-known too. An excellent example is Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee, which was formed (or at least enhanced) due to ground shifts related to the 1812 New Madrid earthquake -- this was not far from Illinois.

Burial of trees happens all the time. Sites with fossil forests are known from all over the world. But having them exposed in a roof of a coal seam is quite cool, even though that isn't unknown either (e.g., in the area near Price, Utah -- some of the seams even have dinosaur footprints in their roof in addition to tree stumps).

The original article being referred to is in the latest issue of the journal Geology, but you have to be a subscriber to view it.

The 'black sea flood' didn't actually happen. Meltwater inputs into the Volga, Deniper and other major rivers in Ukraine were, as far as the evidence shoes, greater than evaporation, leading to an outflow across the Bospohorous; it was not until ca. 7500 years ago that the Med rose to a similar level to the black sea.

If you would have followed the link and looked for the text of the article, you'd see that this article (despite claims on the page) is freely available. Here... this link should do it: Text of article in HTML

Then read the abstract at least. It's free.

It was already pointed out that seeds probably survived even if the parent plants didn't. Have a look at an area where there's been a forest fire to see how this works.

Many species survived, yes. It's impossible for use to determine how many individuals survived though, and I see no claims here one way or another.

The impact did metamorph rocks in the area, but worldwide there was nowhere near enough heat. It takes far more heat than a large forest fire, or even a broiler, to cause that kind of change in rocks. You normally need lots of pressure too.

As far as "reacting the atmosphere," that's part of the theory as first suggested several years ago. This isn't a new theory, but a study bringing out more evidence for it.

Take your own advice and look at some real science, not an isolated science magazine article here and there (oh, and you might want to learn the difference between a real science journal and a professional society magazine). As I said earlier, go look up the position statements from the National Academy of Sciences and the American Geophysical Union, to name two laudable societies that speak for the majority of scientists on this issue.

It also isn't entirely clear that you even read the blurb to which you linked. Even ignoring the number of quotes that disagreed with the authors, there was only one quote of support, if you could call it that, which said the work was "intriguing." Well, gee, I'm convinced. If that is the best "real science" you can throw up, then you are either ignorant or one of the many deceivers that like to twist and confuse the issue.

Boy, what a dumbass. What are you going to dig up next, a link to a Wall Street Journal article that itself refers to a brief note in The Onion?

...the HTML version of the article can be found here.