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.
Some will say "That's just, like, your opinion, man. You have no proof humans are causing this."
Some will say "God gave us the Earth, and the end is near anyway so what does it matter?"
Some will say "So it gets warmer, so what? I hate cold weather anyway."
Some will just say "Gee, that's interesting" and get into their SUV and drive off, leaving all the lights and heater running in their house, and they DGAF.
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
just goes to show those dinosaurs really weren't that great, all the wasted effort on museums and such not to mention the captain planets.
What an absurd thing to say. The total amount of CO2 is not the thing to pay attention to. That is a huge number. The thing to pay attention to is the CO2 level in the atmosphere which has gone from around 280 PPM range in the 1800s to over 400 PPM now. That released CO2 will eventually be processed by biology, but that takes time, and in the process the oceans will acidify, which screws up many organisms including coral and calcifying algae. It of course also forces warming and climate change. So stop talking nonsense about what percent of the total CO2 humans have generated relative to the amount in the whole world.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
C02 monthly mean concentration. Looks like we've gone from about 310 ppm to over 400 ppm.
From the wikipedia: Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. According to work published in 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.
Of course, the next step is to claim that the Wikipedia + NASA + all scientists are in some kind of conspiracy to distort the truth according to a left-wing agenda. You may now proceed with this phase.
You have no fucking idea how science works. Science advances as data is gathered, theories are refined or new ones are proposed. It isn't some game of topplng windmills. If a theory is invalid, yes it will be rejected, but that is not the sole activity of science, nor, really is it the main activity of science.
Do you seriously think there are scientists in any great numbers running around trying to disprove QM or tectonic plate theories? Is that what you think physicists and geologists are doing? If that is what you think, then you are an ignoramus.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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...
Then fucking read the science, for fuck's sake. Stop paying attention to the fucking pundits on either side of the debate. I care about as much about what Al Gore, George Monbiot or some Hollywood star thinks about climatology as I do the Wall Street Fucking journal. Jesus, this isnt' fucking hard, and it's not as if you have to go far to actually read what real scientists working in climatology and related fields are studying.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, it's really not hard to know who's telling the truth.
The "silt" that has been stirred was purposeful. There are some very powerful forces that don't like the idea of consequences. The silt that has been stirred was not stirred by scientists, but by those who are threatened by science.
If you're having a hard time figuring out who's telling the truth, then maybe the problem is not the science, but your discernment capabilities.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You are talking nonsense. If you really believe that every university in the world has been somehow "compromised" by some kind of agenda that would cause scientists from those institutions to push a global warming agenda, then my guess is that you haven't met any scientists.
The only thing that's been compromised is your basic common sense.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Seriously? Do you even know why CO2 is a GHG? And if you say it's not, then please explain to me how CO2 doesn't absorb in regions of the IR spectrum that are otherwise transparent. Do you know how ENSO works, and why wind stress forcing from ENSO can help sequester heat into the intermediate and Deep waters of the western Pacific during normal, and with greater intensity during LA Nina years? Do you understand how that slowing of the walker circulation can reverse that downwelling and pull all that sequestered heat back to the surface where it is then available for the lower troposphere. Look, there are a number of climate skeptics in the Earth and Atmospheric sciences of various institutions, but even the out skeptical accept that *something* is happening. Hell I even managed to get Dr Judith Curry to agree with me in 2014, that the next few years would tell the story. If temps remained relatively level, then we were missing something. But if temps resumed their March upward, then even she said that would give strong evidence that the current models were more right than wrong. You want to challenge the science, go for it. You want to derive your own models and see what happens, go for it! Otherwise you're just flapping your gums and wasting time while the adults are trying to figure out what the hell is going on and what we can do to further improve the models and better understand how bad we are fucking the planet up, and maybe, convince enough people that, while mankind won't die off if the temps go up 5 degrees C (and just for you, that's 9 degrees Fahrenheit), you'll see some massive displacement of atmospheric patterns, wildlife, human population displacement, crop disruptions as regions of best growth of certain crops shift dramatically. So yeah, I doubt you'll listen, but maybe other people who read the thread will take it on themselves to look deeper, learn more, and decide based on accurate information. Things are grim enough I don't need to bias a damn thing to make my case.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
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.'"
Just wondering, do you accept the fact that the warming due to CO2 increases logarithmically? Since we've obviously both survived and thrived since the 1800s, and there's no realistic scenario where CO2 rises exponentially, isn't this a problem that solves itself with cold, hard math?
The 120ppm we've added so far (if you attribute 100% of it to humans) will have done more warming than the next 120ppm, which will also do more warming than next 120ppm, until the affect is too small to be measured.
Notice how all dissenting views get modded to -1
Frankly I think it's wrong even trying to divide the world into "dissenting" and "assenting." At least, it's not a very scientific way of looking at it. The author of the paper has a good discussion at the beginning of this paper.
You shouldn't mod people up based on whether you 'agree' or 'disagree' with them. Rather, mod them based on whether they've read the paper or not, and the quality of their analysis. Scientific thought should be respected.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
At this point, so much silt has been stirred, it's hard to know who's telling the truth, if anyone. If scientists want more credibility, they need to start flushing out the ideological charge embedded in universities where they study. Sure, Saud and Koch are hardly objective, but neither are the blowhards at the ivy league.
There is a lot of science out there to read. And trying to invalidate physics by casting aspersions on those who practice it is pretty disingenuous.
There really isn't much left to argue about, either greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases, or they aren't. With some 800 terawatts of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. (1.6 watts per square meter) since 1750, something happens somewhere.
Here's one report - http://news.mit.edu/2010/expla... - where is the blowhardism in it? It's about as simple as can be made. I see no political or monetary agenda. Do you?
what is more, the denialists tend to dreadfully underestimate the money for the research and the scientists salaries. That's a hilarious excuse.
But really, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny. The basic physics is irrefutable, you can prove the energy retention characteristic of the chemical composition of an atmosphere in your basement. Grade school children do it all the time in school science fairs.
Really, all you are left with is proving that the effect doesn''t exist in large scale systems.
And the research for that is vanishingly small. Even one of the last gasp "refutations" of AGW is the measurements of air temperatures in the troposphere versus satellite discrepancies. Which have long since been brought into correlation, but are still being drug up as a strange sort of false dilemma by deniers.
which by the way, the troposphere is not the surface.
I've always challenged deniers to provide the cites for the refutation of AGW. So far, everything has been pretty easy to refute, either by later research, or sad to say, sometimes deliberate falsification.
And no, the kooks who say the world will end are almost certainly wrong - Something will be here until the sun goes red giant. But things will change. We have a sneak preview of it going on right now. The city of Miami in Florida is already undergoing flooding every spring tide at present levels. The water is there - that cannot be denied. You can walk in it on the street, and it's salt water. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/H...
http://www.local10.com/news/lo...
These are not from storm surges, these are from a completely natural event. Just higher than it used to be.
And that's just one part of it.
So if you actually are interested in real research, with none of the blowhardism you hate, it's all out there. But the denialists are pretty much now relegated to the same part of humanity as creationists and it's brother Intelligent design, Vaxxers, moon landing conspiracists, and tobacco industry lawyers.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That's it, use your mod points you evil fucking assholes. Waste them all, but it won't change the fact that the univese doesn't owe your precious oil economy one fucking favor. CO2 traps energy, assholes, no matter how many mod points and trolling actions you use to try to deny it.
Chillaxe dude. The denialists are using the only tool they have left, to try to yell louder than you do. Your posts don't go away, and I've found in climate news here, it helps to surf at 0.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What science? From the scientists who studied at these contaminated institutions?
This is special pleading.. Who are these 'real' scientists you speak of? I'm willing to bet they graduated from such schools, probably with high honors. This legitimacy is marred by the compromised state of the university system, most of which pushes ideology first, critical thought second. That shit has to stop.
Ahh, you show your true denialist roots. I knew we could flush you out.
Give me the citations of the contamination. Hell, the university where I worked is considered by the lefties as being in bed with the energy industry. Only difference is, the scientists believe in science, which you do not.
I'll take that back as soon as you show me the citations of the "contaminated universities" and the proof that AGW doesn't exist.
As well, we might discuss how your political beliefs trumps physics. That, by the way, is called Lysenkoism.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes, let the people have their say in the vetting of science. This is a democracy! So long as brother John down the road is unconvinced, and so long as local channel 8 (sponsored in part by Exxon Mobile) gives him a mic to debate these important issues, it's unsettled and there's no cause for alarm. Keep doing what you're doing. No one has to adjust. Nothing is wrong. Everything is fine.
There's valid good-faith questioning, and then there's bad-faith denial. Usually they're not hard to tell apart.
We really do need some scientific questioning about what's happening but tragically that gets drowned out in the denial.
Obviously, If someone wanted to question AGW, there are ways to do it.
You come up with a hypothesis. That would be something like "The greenhouse effect fails at global scales because of radiative reflection by clouds.".
Okay, now you have your hypothesis. So you come up with a rationale and a pla of how you are going to test it.
I'd say first measurements of radiation reflected by clouds might be taken by satellite to get a baseline. then over years, do large scale testing with amounts of cloud cover, and extrapolate.
the concept is that when land and ocean warm up, there will be more water put into the atmosphere, and cloud cover will increase. The increased reflection will re-radiate more of the sun's insolation back into space. This will then have a cooling effect that will tend to reduce the average temperature. This will act as more of a regulator than anything else. The earth's temperature will tend to be very stable, on a global scale.
Put together a proposal, and look for funding. After getting funding, proceed with the experiment and see how it turns out. If you refute AGW, you are going to get a Nobel prize.
GIven the amount of money spent to deny AGW, some of that might be spent to fund research like this. But it isn't.
And there you go. I've actually provided an actual idea for the refutation of AGW, and a really brief outline of the experiment to confirm it. This is more than anything I've seen by deniers. At best, they cherry pick research done by others, and engage in a false dilemma. At worst, they look outside the window and say "Brrrr, cold today - so much for Global Warming!"
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Science doesn't advance because people agree with the status quo. No, they point out where current theories are wrong. That's when science really advances. In most fields, dissenting views are welcome debate because it benefits science. But that doesn't happen with global warming. Dissenting views are silenced just like you see happening here.
You must spend very little time around scientists. There is a tremendous amount of discussion and argument. Often the argument technique is used to work out the theory.
The problem with your thesis is that while there isn't a tremendous amount of argument today about AGW, it is not because of your odd conflation with religion, but it's because Scientists do not argue much about evolution or the idea that the earth is ony 6 thousand years old either. Or gravity, or nuclear fission and fusion for that matter. There aren't any scientists arguing for the Phlogiston theory, and that's a fact. There comes a point where someone who wants to claim that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time, or that the sun is a lump of burning coal, are going to have a hard time being listened to.
As I've told many, put together a hypothesis, an experimental plan and look for funding. And if you are worried about the so called conspiracy of scientists, you could probably get the Koch brothers to fund the experiments at maybe Liberty University. Then after proving AGW wrong, the scientist who does will be in line for a Nobel prize.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Who said I don't believe in science? Who said I was a denier?
I did. "Contaminated institutions." "You have to flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues" "left wing propaganda".
Here's a challenge. Michael Mann (apologies if I made you foam at the mouth there) works at the Pennsylvania state University. Now tell me about their "contamination and their left wing leaning and their Marxism.
Any citations yet?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Seriously.
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Okay. Stop fucking screaming about it already. We get it, atmospheric carbon is ridiculous now.
But that simply isn't important.
How do we address the problem in a way that doesn't destroy modern civilization, kill off a large percentage of the world population and send us back to the Stone Age?
And how do we get universal buy-in from other governments?
That's the important part.
What we have now are a bunch of armchair "research scientists" competing for funding so they can continue to bleat on about how "bad" things are. Like nobody else in the world can read automatically collected data. It's like a bunch of bazaar vendors scrambling over a lucky "first customer of the day".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Translation: Stage 5 of climate change denialsim: okay, climate change was a hoax, and no it's not being caused by the sun, or volcanoes, or whatever stupid bullshit you guys drag up to deflect from your own responsibility. Now we're at, okay, AGW is happening, but it's toooo haaaard to do anything about it!
Problem: the costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
We could have solved this problem decades ago, by moving to renewable energy sources. But nooooooo, we had to listen to the apologists for Philip Morris first. Sorry, that autocorrected from Exxon for some reason.
Listening to climate change deniers now makes as much sense as listening to people who were chickenhawk warmongers on Iraq for what to do about ISIS or Syria.
If you really believe that every university in the world has been somehow "compromised" by some kind of agenda
Oh it totally has. Take it from me: I used to teach software engineering in the engineering department of a very well known university. Ha! Well, I say "software engineering". That was technically the name of the subject and of course advertised to the outside world to keep them in the dark, while I indoctrinated my students.
Let me give you a sampling of the real lecture titles, not the fake ones put on the website:
Promoting Marxism with Object Oriented Programming
Concurrency, Mutexes and Equality of Outcome.
Relational Algebra and The Worker Will Rise.
I would also start each lecture with a rousing chorus of "The People's Flag", and to cement things completely, I would mark the exams with a red pen.
I can promise you there is some truth in what I just wrote.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
>Science inherently involves questioning absolutely everything, in every way possible
Erm no. Science involves questioning science with other, better, science. Nothing less. When you have observations, a theory to explain them and lots and lots of evidence to support that theory as the correct explanation - then the only "correct" way to question that scientifically is with OTHER evidence or a better theory.
Thus far none of either has been forthcoming. Until and unless you can either provide a theory that fit both the observations and the evidence better than the current one - you have no scientific case. Newton's laws were the epitomy of physics for almost half a millennium. We didn't surpass them until the 20th century when, for the first time, we had the kind of measurement capability to go beyond it's limits and actually find evidence of things it gets wrong. Sure, many people questioned it along the way, but at no point did we stop using it until we had better science - and even after that we still use it for things where it's shortcomings aren't big enough to matter (the vast majority of our space programs for one thing - things like GPS are rare exceptions where we need to account for relativity aspects).
So right now, we have a set of observations and a whole host of other evidence to back them up from completely disparate fields of science and a solid theory to explain them. We should USE that theory as the best we have. Question it if you want to but until better science exists "questioning" is *not* an excuse for failing to use or heed the best theory in the field !
Climate deniers deserve the appellate despite their constant attempt to rebrand themselves as skeptics -because they don't meet the definition of skeptics. Skeptics accept evidence and only evidence. Those who refuse to accept a theory *despite* evidence are the opposite of skeptics, we call them "deniers". It's a perfectly *accurate* description of climate deniers as they fit the definition of a "denier" perfectly.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
AGW theory makes a specific prediction - that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The UAH and RSS satellites, as well as thousands of weather balloons show not only that this is not the case, but that the OPPOSITE is happening - the surface is warming faster. That means AGW is FALSIFIED according to the Scientific Method. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about this - the theory made a prediction that is falsified. The Null Hypothesis MUST be accepted instead.
People still clinging to AGW are the ones who are refusing to use the Scientific Method. They seem to believe computer simulations which predict TCS and ECS of 4-7 when the observed value is around 1.2. Again, this falsified the claims of AGW theory as presented by the IPCC.
This is the SCIENCE according to observed reality. Whether one likes it to be true or not is irrelevant - the science is now settled, the AGW hypothesis cannot be sustained based on observations. It is back to the drawing board to either improve AGW and make another prediction, or come up with another theory (such as the Svensmark one where solar magnetic activity and oceanic thermal mediation produce natural climate changes that are greater than human-induced ones).
...and even if mankind had a major impact on CO2 levels (which it doesn't) and even if a rise in temperature was accurately measured and meaningful (which it isn't) ...
Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning!
The simple fact is mankind has had an unprecedented effect on levels of CO2. If you choose to argue against that point then anything else you say can be taken with a pinch of salt, because clearly you have a significant blind spot, for whatever reason, regarding the entire topic.
As for any rise in temperature, what I find fascinating in the whole debate is how focused people seem to be on the extremes, the overall highs and year round averages. Yup, these are significant, but to get hung up on them is actually to miss a great chunk of the picture. The fact* is, the climate has already changed markedly over my lifetime, slightly more so over the lifetime of my father, and ever so slightly more so over the lifetime of my grandfather. Furthermore, I strongly suspect the change over the lifetime of the next generation of my family will be even greater. Wait...
... Before you get all hot under the collar, let me explain what I mean by "the climate has already changed markedly", and how I know this to be a fact*. I don't mean there's been an increase in terrible storms (I'm not in a position to be a rational judge of whether that is the case or not), or that it's now hotter than it was when I was a child. No. Just simply that 'spring' arrives earlier than it did when I first started gardening, 30+ years ago. And both my father and grandfather also noted the same thing, though to a lesser degree. The thing is, this strange, almost time lapse view of the natural world is fairly easy to observe, and trivial to record. And the trend of earlier and earlier springs is obvious. I can't personally notice a 0.2 degree difference in temperature (figure pulled out of nowhere, by means of an example) between this March and March 2000. I don't need to, I can see the effects all around me in my garden. In one sense there are no more meaningful measurements than that!
Questioning isn't denying, no denying that. But denying isn't questioning, and it certainly isn't science.
*OK, I admit, while my observations are facts, the conclusions are in fact actually opinions. So sue me ;-)
> Hell, the university where I worked is considered by the lefties as being in bed with the energy industry. Only difference is, the scientists believe in science, which you do not.
Ironically so do even the scientists who are directly employed by the energy industry. ExxonMobil's own scientists told them that fossil fuels would cause warming in the late 80's already. They always knew it. They just weren't allowed to talk about it - and the company told the public something that radically differed from what they discussed internally (which, by the way, is criminal fraud).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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