Slashdot Mirror
Scientists: What We're Doing To The Earth Has No Parallel In 66 Million Years (washingtonpost.com)
mspohr writes from an article on The Washington Post: We haven't seen this much CO2 added to the atmosphere in 66 million years: "If you look over the entire Cenozoic, the last 66 million years, the only event that we know of at the moment, that has a massive carbon release, and happens over a relatively short period of time, is the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)," says Zeebe. "We actually have to go back to relatively old periods, because in the more recent past, we don't see anything comparable to what humans are currently doing." [New research suggests, even the drama of the PETM falls short of our current period, in at least one key respect: We're putting carbon into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than happened back then.] "The anthropogenic release outpaces carbon release during the most extreme global warming event of the past 66 million years, by at least an order of magnitude," writes Peter Stassen, an Earth and environmental scientist at KU Leuven, in Belgium, in an accompanying commentary on the new study. "Given that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented throughout the Cenozoic, we have effectively entered an era of a no-analogue state, which represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections," the study concludes.
What the FUCK are you talking about? All the numbers have been released in copious detail over and over, as well as the sources for their models/trend estimators. Stop fucking lying you ignorant jackass. Here's the NOAA data for January (the second hottest on record) if you're actually serious.
"The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
Yes, during the PETM, temperatures rose rapidly by 5-8C. Mind you, this temperature increase was on top of temperatures that were already a lot higher than today. There were lots of changes during that period, but no generalized mass extinction. Corals suffered but didn't die out. Land animals didn't see any significant extinction. Mammals did very well.
In addition, just to drive the point home, the carbon was then rapidly absorbed again and the temperature fell again, before slowly rising to the same level again during the Eocene optimum. So we have examples of both fast and slow, long duration and short duration increases in atmospheric carbon from the Eocene, and no massive global catastrophes.
The PETM to me always suggested that the concerns about climate change were overblown. Even if there are some negative short term effects, much higher temperatures and melting ice caps don't spell doom for the world. In fact, if anything, the Eocene climate may have been nicer than what we have today.
(Note also that when people claim that carbon release during the PETM "was" slower than today, that's based on various assumptions, not direct measurement. All we can say is that carbon release was very fast and took less than 20ka.)
It's the sun
The only problem with that theory is that solar output and temperature have been going in opposite directions for the last 40 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
Can you imagine if opponents to String Theory or General Relativity were silenced in this manner?
Don't conflate the theory of relativity with the string idea.
Remember, about five decades ago, scientists were concerned about global cooling.
That's a myth.
Before then, cigarettes were considered healthy.
That's also a myth. The tobacco industry did find some shills, though.
People twirled paintbrushes that were used with paint containing radium, blissfully unaware of the dangers.
Right, but science didn't say it was safe. It hadn't said jack on the subject yet.
We shouldn't censor dissenting views; it's bad for science.
That's OK, nobody is censoring the view that AGW doesn't exist. Nobody credible is putting it forward, either.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Until the permafrost defrosts and starts releasing the real planet warming gas that is Methane
The Kochs wouldn't fund the experiment because they know what the answer would be. Heartland Institute cash is much better spent funding Frank Spencer's WSJ articles and speaking tours, or the even more delightful Judith Curry, who denies both evolution and AGW. The one time they did fund an actual study, Richard Muller's study, the result was a confirmation that climatological research was going in the right direction. They won't make that mistake twice.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The AGW industry is worth $29 Billion / annum. If you want to play Quo Bono? then you should start there.
The AGW hypothesis makes the specific prediction that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. The opposite is seen in reality. Thus, the Scientific Method REQUIRES you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you use the Scientific Method or are you anti-scientific ?
Furthermore the observed TCS and ECS are of the order of 4 -7 C / doubling of CO2 according to the IPCC. This is based on guestimates of the effect of water vapor. The observed reality is that the TCS is around 1.2 C, which means water vapor has little effect over CO2's direct effect (which itself is quite small at the current concentration of CO2 - the effect diminishes logarithmically). Again, will you accept observational reality over a hypothesis whose predictions are not only not true, but the opposite is seen?
AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface. The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.
AGW makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the surface.
You keep writing this, but it's still wrong (in several ways):
The OPPOSITE is seen, the surface is warming faster than the TLT.
Only in a single data set with a known cold bias.
Furthermore, the computer simulations estimate the ECS and TCS to be of the order of 4-7 C / doubling of CO2.
Actually the IPCC says between 1.5 and 4.5.
This is the Science, and according to the Scientific Method the AGW theory is falsified.
Unfortunately (for you), the scientific method actually doesn't work like that. Otherwise, everyone in my high school science classes would have disproved gravity because no one got a measurement that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2. You need to show a real (and critical) divergence from the predictions of the theory to falsify it. The bungled results of two bumbling scientists who refuse to correct previously identified errors in their methodology doesn't cut it, especially when their results contradict a minor theoretical side effect that's not even specific to the theory in question.
The present warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age. It started a century before humans started emitting significant quantities of CO2. Now, please consider what you would expect to see when solar magnetic activity started increasing after the Maunder and Dalton minimums - would you expect to see warming starting a century and a half ago? do you see warming? yes you do. Svensmark and Shaviv explain the mechanism and this fits observations.
Yet, we measure the solar activity and it has not only not been for the last 25 years, it's been slightly decreasing, and yet warming continues. If your theory is that the sun did it, that theory is not consistent with the evidence. It is a worse fit in every way that anthropogenic climate change.
Fanatically anti-fanatical