<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Never Yet Melted</title>
	<atom:link href="http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/palaeocene%e2%80%93eocene-thermal-maximum/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://neveryetmelted.com</link>
	<description>The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. -- D.H. Lawrence</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:03:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Can the Alleged Consensus Actually be Wrong?</title>
		<link>http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/07/16/can-the-alleged-consensus-actually-be-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/07/16/can-the-alleged-consensus-actually-be-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JDZ</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Geology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Popular Delusions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=6368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ScienceFair reads a new journal article in Nature Geoscience and begins to wonder. Could the best climate models&#8212;the ones used to predict global warming&#8212;all be wrong? Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming.html">ScienceFair</a> reads a new journal article in Nature Geoscience and begins to wonder.</p>

	<p><blockquote><br />
Could the best climate models&#8212;the ones used to predict global warming&#8212;all be wrong?</p>

	<p>Maybe so, says a <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo578.html">new study</a> published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience.  The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.</p>

	<p>&#8220;In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,&#8221; says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. &#8220;There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.&#8221;</p>

	<p>During the warming period, known as the &#8220;Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum&#8221; (PETM), for unknown reasons, the amount of carbon in Earth&#8217;s atmosphere rose rapidly. This makes the <span class="caps">PETM</span> one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth.</p>

	<p>As the levels of carbon increased, global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the <span class="caps">PETM</span>. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.</p>

	<p>The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. &#8220;Some feedback loop or other processes that aren&#8217;t accounted for in these models&#8212;the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming&#8212;caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the <span class="caps">PETM</span>.&#8221;</blockquote></p>

	<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo578.html">Abstract</a>:</p>

	<p><blockquote><br />
The Palaeocene&#8211;Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth&#8217;s surface, although the source remains an open issue. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5&#8211;9 &#176;C within a few thousand years. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution, and stable carbon isotope composition, along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than minus50permil. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric <span class="caps">CO2</span> concentration1, this rise in <span class="caps">CO2</span> can explain only between 1 and 3.5 &#176;C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct <span class="caps">CO2</span> forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene&#8211;Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.</blockquote></p>



 ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/07/16/can-the-alleged-consensus-actually-be-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

