Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum: filling an ocean?

**Andre** · Dec17-06, 05:50 AM

Recently another study is about to fuel the climate scare:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Gl...sions_999.html

That Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum was something completely different. The most likely explanation, that is, the explanation for the most enigmatic features is wrapped up in those odd last three words of the threads title. More later.

**Andre** · Dec17-06, 06:14 AM

These recent studies show some imposibilities which appear to be the key to the solution of the problem. How do you get fresh water duckweed and tropical algea into the arctic?

**Andre** · Dec17-06, 12:36 PM

So what are the main features of the PETM apart from the tropical algea and duckweed at the North Pole?

The main evidence is indeed in the oceans. Gigantic isotope jumps in the proxies, a red clay layer in the oceans named Elmo, etc. etc.

One of the most remarkable features of the PETM is its uniqueness. Nothing but really nothing in the geologic history resembles it at all. Given that, it appears evident that recurring events llike alleged greenhouse - ice house state changes on Earth would not suffice to explain it. That's why the greenhouse hype explanation is gibberish. Why is there only one PETM? Why not several at each high CO2 spike in the last so many 100 millions years ago? Actually the atmospheric CO2 was quite low already around the PETM.

No, to explain a unique feature you require unique causes.

One unique feature on geologic time scales is the continental drift due to plate tectonics. The topography of Earth is always unique as the continents drift around seemingly at random.

Would that help?

**Skyhunter** · Dec17-06, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Andre

One unique feature on geologic time scales is the continental drift due to plate tectonics. The topography of Earth is always unique as the continents drift around seemingly at random.

Would that help?

Not at all, since continental drift is not random, and takes place over millions of years, not thousands.

**Andre** · Dec17-06, 02:04 PM

Okay I ment to say that a certain location of the continents is unique in the time. Next year the world map is wrong, some continents have moved a quarter of an inch or something.

An impression of the plate tectonics is animated here (source wikipedia) and each snapshot is unique.

Meaning that somewhere in a unique setting of the continents something unique has happened.

**Andre** · Dec17-06, 02:15 PM

Now here is an impression of the orientation of the continents around 50 million years ago, look carefully at the North pole and while thinking which unique event might have occured a nice picture

to get some inspiration.

So, How do you get tropical algae at the north pole?

**Andre** · Dec18-06, 07:34 AM

Nobody? Can't say that I did not give it a chance, Not interesting? Ridiculous? No idea what's up?

Anyway, here is the abstract of the paper I'm working on, prio 2, the Mammoths go first:

Andre et al, (2006) Understanding the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, a reconstruction

Keywords Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum clathrate Pangea PETM

Abstract

The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum is characterized by enigmatic proxy evidence suggesting warm climates, and, as inferred by numerous publications, massive marine methane hydrate (clathrate) destabilization events. The recent discovery of a near-tropical Arctic ocean however requires a review of existing hypotheses, including greenhouse forcing, to check for the trigger and the cause of events of the PETM.

Here we propose that alternately the same proxy evidence, in toto, could have been caused by another mechanism. After the breakup of the Pangaea supercontinent some 200 million years ago, North America moved in a semicircle clockwise towards the north, hinging around the Greenland - Svalbard area until Alaska and Beringia made contact. Thus the Arctic Sea became isolated and no longer had contact with open oceans. Then the evaporation of the Arctic inner sea exceeded accumulation for a prolonged period causing a significant sea level lowering in comparison with the rest of the oceans. Furthermore, the tectonic movements of the plates may have enlarged the Arctic basin as North America continued to move progressively to the southwest, lowering sea level iin the Arctic basin further.

At the start of the Eocene, 55 Ma ago, the Turgai Strait, splitting Siberia from North to South may have connected the virtually empty Arctic basin and the near-tropical Tethys sea, resulting in an Arctic basin which would have started to fill rapidly with the warm surface water of the Tethys sea, not only transporting alien biota towards the Arctic but also warming up the area. The resulting abrupt sea level drop of some 15-30 meters in a very short time would have caused a secular destabilization of the marine methane hydrates, which would then explain the remaining proxy evidence pertaining to isotope excursions and the Elmo. Hence the empty-Arctic-basin-hypothesis appears to be backed by the evidence, challenging the case for the Palaeocene Eocene Thermal Maximum to be explained primarily as an enhanced Greenhouse forcing scenario.

That's how you get tropical algae at the North Pole

**Andre** · Dec18-06, 08:23 AM

Now you could think that this is nonsense, however:

Ernst SR , E Guasti, C Dupuis, RP Speijer 2006 Environmental perturbation in the southern Tethys across the Paleocene/Eocene boundary (Dababiya, Egypt): Foraminiferal and clay mineral records Marine Micropaleontology Volume 60, Issue 1 , 27 June 2006, Pages 89-111

Abstract
Foraminiferal and clay mineral records were studied in the upper Paleocene to lower Eocene Dababiya section (Egypt). This section hosts the GSSP for the Paleocene/Eocene boundary and as such provides an expanded and relatively continuous record across the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Deposition of illite–smectite clay minerals is interpreted as a result of warm and arid conditions in the southern Tethys during the latest Paleocene. Benthic foraminiferal assemblages are indicative of seasonal variation of oxygen and food levels at the seafloor. A sea-level fall occurred in the latest Paleocene, followed by a rise in the earliest Eocene....etc

**billiards** · Dec28-06, 09:24 PM

#Interesting, haven't had the time to look into all your refernces, but agree about the continent positions. Not sure but I think some major ocean stuff might have been going on.

Go back to the mid Eocene and I think it is thought that a passage was open between north and south america, there is also some recent evidence that suggests an ice age at this time. Now I don't know all the evidence but presumably if (as someone I know who is just about to publish this suggests) this passage opened up in the Mid-Eocene, it would have been closed in the Early Eocene.

This would have encouraged western boundary currents (similar to the Gulf Stream) to form, which would have carried more warmth to the poles and helped melt the ice caps. I definitely think the position of the continents was important.

However I do not believe that any of this impedes on the validity of the greenhouse gases as a mechanism for global warming (take a look at Venus if you wann see what greenhouse gases can really do). Coupled with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the present-day continent arrangement is any less/more conducive to global warming than it was in the early eocene, I remain sceptical about those that use this kind of research to justify their climate/political views.

**Andre** · Dec29-06, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by billiards

(take a look at Venus if you wann see what greenhouse gases can really do).

Take a look at Mars, with blackbody temperature about the same as the actual temperature, to see what greenhouse gasses fail to do. However the case of Venus is probably utterly, completely different, when looking at all its features simulanously.

Have a look here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=10879

I remain sceptical about those that use this kind of research to justify their climate/political views.

You realise that you are insulting me and disdaining the scientific process for a bunch of fallacies. Here are observations, ideas to explain them and evidence to support that. What on earth has that to do with climate/political views?

**billiards** · Dec29-06, 08:15 AM

I'm not trying to insult you. But if you're using your research to convince people that greenhouse gases aren't important then you're clearly politically motivated. The two mechanisms are not mutually exclusive.

Your research is important but it is not as far reaching as you'd like to think, it certainly does not show that greenhouse gases are not important in raising global temps. In fact you insult me by suggesting that my ideas are "hype" and a bunch of scientific "fallacies". Perhaps you should be a little less sensationalist with your work, and try not to jump to such provokative and thoughtless conclusions.

**Andre** · Dec29-06, 09:01 AM

But if you're using your research to convince people that greenhouse gases aren't important then you're clearly politically motivated.

Right there, you're doing it again. Most definitely not. Being indifferent towards global warming, my research started off with investigating the mass murder on the Mammoths in 1999 with the sole objective to find out whodunnit.

We solved that: here

but in the process we also found out that the very basis of AGW, the interpretation of the ice cores and other isotope proxies got refuted in the process. I'll post that eventually. You may want to know that my first thought was: "oops this is terrible" but noticing the remorseless hatred campaign against anybody who had the guts to challenge anything, my sentiment has reversed 180 degrees.

**billiards** · Dec29-06, 09:49 AM

Andre, I am interested in what you have to say, but I am not sure exactly what it is that you are saying. I've clicked around as much as can be expected of any ordinary person, in an attempt to see what it is you are arguing. Perhaps it is time to sum up briefly your lines of evidence, and then clearly state your conclusions in one concise post.

I have some issues with what I think you're saying but I need further clarification before I will comment.

Cheers

**Andre** · Dec31-06, 05:49 AM

My priority right now is giving NERC something to think about here.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/...spx?did=1&pg=1

But that's all part one of the Popper philosophy, before trying new explanations, old ideas need to be falsified first.

A wrap up of post about the evidence for the last glacial transition is here:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refut...hermometer.pdf

**billiards** · Jan1-07, 07:13 PM

Unfortunately I can't currently read pdfs on this computer :(

I guess the obvious point is why do you think the presence of duckweed and tropical algae in the Arctic is a nail in the coffin for the theory of greenhouse gas induced global warming??

**Andre** · Jan2-07, 07:33 AM

Perhaps try acrobat reader: http://www.acrobat-stop.com/index.as...bat&kw=acrobat

It's free.

The PDF is about the last glacial maximum, proving that isotopes are lousy paleothermometers. The PETM temperature is also mainly isotopes. The paper about the PETM is still WiP.