Slashdot Mirror
Ancient Climate Change Triggered Warming That Lasted Thousands of Years (phys.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: A rapid rise in temperature on ancient Earth triggered a climate response that may have prolonged the warming for many thousands of years, according to scientists. Their study, published online in Nature Geoscience, provides new evidence of a climate feedback that could explain the long duration of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which is considered the best analogue for modern climate change. The findings also suggest that climate change today could have long-lasting impacts on global temperature even if humans are able to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Increased erosion during the PETM, approximately 56 million years ago, freed large amounts of fossil carbon stored in rocks and released enough carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere to impact temperatures long term, researchers said. Scientists found evidence for the massive carbon release in coastal sediment fossil cores. They analyzed the samples using an innovative molecular technique that enabled them to trace how processes like erosion moved carbon in deep time. Global temperatures increased by about 9 to 14.4 degrees Fahrenheit during the PETM, radically changing conditions on Earth. Severe storms and flooding became more common, and the warm, wet weather led to increased erosion of rocks. As erosion wore down mountains over thousands of years, carbon was released from rocks and transported by rivers to oceans, where some was reburied in coastal sediments. Along the way, some of the carbon entered the atmosphere as greenhouse gas.
Increased erosion during the PETM, approximately 56 million years ago, freed large amounts of fossil carbon stored in rocks and released enough carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere to impact temperatures long term, researchers said. Scientists found evidence for the massive carbon release in coastal sediment fossil cores. They analyzed the samples using an innovative molecular technique that enabled them to trace how processes like erosion moved carbon in deep time. Global temperatures increased by about 9 to 14.4 degrees Fahrenheit during the PETM, radically changing conditions on Earth. Severe storms and flooding became more common, and the warm, wet weather led to increased erosion of rocks. As erosion wore down mountains over thousands of years, carbon was released from rocks and transported by rivers to oceans, where some was reburied in coastal sediments. Along the way, some of the carbon entered the atmosphere as greenhouse gas.
No wonder they slaughtered mammoths, it was to decrease methane emissions!
Man, those Chinese climate hoaxers just don't know when to quit do they?
It's like 10,000 Homer Simpsons farting at the same time. Any idea how much methane gets out in one rip?
The title should be...
Ancient Climate Change Caused Mass Extinction Less Severe Than Projected Future
If we don't do take action soon then in a billion years some creature may be digging up fossils trying to figure out what caused our present mass extinction event.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
That sounds reasonable. A 200,000 year long process now takes 100 years. I hope geological changes speed up the same way. That'd move the next Yellowstone caldera eruption from sometime in the next 600,000 years, to possibly next Thursday. Just enough time to plan an apocalypse party!
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
There is a Wikipedia entry:
WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American news and opinion website and online news aggregator which has been described as "fringe" and far right[6] as well as politically conservative.[7] The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[16]
I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are not a source of reliable information.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
We can live anywhere.
[($)]
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
I looked up who this guy was and oh boy.
Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught.
Excerpt about the paper.
The withdrawn study “is just a curve-fitting exercise of five data points using four free parameters and as many functional forms as they could think of,” Schmidt, an expert in atmospheric climate modeling, said in an email. Like the previous pseudonymous research, “it too has nothing fundamental to add.”
He added, “The authors’ insistence that they are ‘contradicting mainstream theory’ is just delusional self-aggrandizement.”
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It's never changed this quickly, therefore everything is fine? Wow, that's some great logic there, sparky. The planet didn't have to contend with anthropogenic forcing putting a finger on the scale.
The same way that people eventually die from natural causes, so how can someone shooting people be related to people dying now?
It's turtles all the way down.
It is neither an idle solar system, nor an idle galaxy nor an idle universe, plenty of things things can quite readily screw with the earth and even a major sun event can have dramatic outcomes for the earth, an even over a week having an impact over millions of years, just suck it up. We get subject to enough catastrophies without creating our own, oh look it's too late, we have already created at own, it is only a matter of socialising those costs now that the profits have been privatised but when the calamity strikes, they will be seeking to hang those profiteers and it is only a matter of time and the randomness of weather outcomes, forget stable change with stable models reflect climate change or weather averages, real weather will make a mockery of the nice smooth climate change models, expect the 1st metre sea level rise resulting from a cycle of weather events to occur a whole lot sooner, that the nice smooth averaging climate change models predict. With that sea level rise, will be the scream to, hang em high, at it will be the rich who loose underwater front assets who are not fossil fuel investors who will scream the loudest and be heard, ahh fossil fuellers kicking in the wind.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Preying upon the Dinosaurs and forcing them to evolve into birds. They saw their fate coming so implanted the designs for their resurrection into promising mamals so that in the distant future they could be resurrected and begin the cycle anew.
Have you looked closely at the pictures of Henry Ford he's at least three quarters metal.
Of course it doesn't take much to cause warming, there's only a few vehicles on mars and they are solar electric yet that planet is warming.
As a sanctimonious do gooder that has no clue about what's going on.
So-- the world was hotter 55 million years ago, which brings up questions before we get into a complex feedback loop theory:
1. Do we know where the Earth's orbit was 55 million years ago? (or do we assume it has been stable/constant?)
2. Do we know the Sun's output 55 million years ago? (or do we assume it was constant, or worse-- model it because we have a theory of the sun's behavior).
At least with regard to natural disasters
https://ourworldindata.org/upl...
Oddly enough the 1910s were a pretty good decade for not dying from natural disaster, at a guess that might have been because people were too busy dying from WWI and the pandemic of the Spanish Flu
About sepp.org.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
technically it will be the beginning of the end. like the fall of rome and the descent into the dark ages it will take several hundred years of steady decline before civilization hits rock bottom. Still, future generations won't remeber us fondly. I can only hope youlose sleep at nighting knowing that future generations will curse the names of boomers, gen-X and millennials.
Throughout history greed wins Everytime. Especially among Americans who consider it socialism to do anything about it
http://saveie6.com/
Why so cheerful?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
From https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/st...
Eventually, their true identities were discovered, and so, the journal, Advances in Space Research, retracted the paper, though the editors acknowledged that the retraction was “not related to the scientific merit of the study.”
Nikolov told WND that the main reason for using fake names was federal policy under the Obama administration.
“I was told by my superiors that I could not publish anything on climate as a government employee,” he said, adding that he works for the U.S. Forest Service but that the research “was done in my private time, has nothing to do with my work, and does not represent the position of my employer.”
It sounded like an honest question, there was no need to insult the person, regardless of your personal opinions. When you respond in such ways, any valid opinion you might have had is ignored and the person moves on. I find it humorous to have people who know nothing about me toss out an insult and think it will end the discussion or change my opinion.
How about you try to prove what the poster said was wrong instead of screaming denalist and other ignorant insults? Your making yourself look foolish because you cant respond in an intelligent manner.
He's not new, he's said this shit before, no it was not an honest question.
It'd be nice if you were right. Unfortunately not. CO2 is indeed potent compared to O2 and nitrogen for its warming. I mean, CO will kill you at trace amounts so it's not like a trace gas isn't known to have a strong effect.
Water vapour does cause warming too but has 2 key differences. First it was already there, we didn't upset the balance by adding to it, so it's not forcing but a feedback from the forcing. Second it is radiative in both directions, it can also cool, whereas CO2 is more opaque to the heat at the wavelengths leaving Earth.
To your point on the benefits of more CO2, the greening of the planet already happened and it did indeed offset some of our emissions. However, plants can only absorb so much extra, they need other nutrients and fresh water and have physical limits. We've long passed that one, sorry.
Genetic Fallacy, much? https://www.logicalfallacies.i...
So opposite of the boy who cried wolf then?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
What happened to all the people who claimed the world was going to end in 2012?
They learned how calendars work, even really old ones.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Please stop using lazy language. I'm sure you meant Man Made Climate Change not just Climate Change. No one is saying the climate never changes and has never changed which is what you are accusing them of. What most MMCC deniers are arguing Against is
1. Man is 100% responsible for the change in temperature being observed and
2. That the models used to predict the dire consequences are accurate.
3. We have the financial and technological ability to make a difference.
The answer to 1 AND 2 is - no they are not.
for 3 the answer is No We do Not - unless you want to eradicate 3/4 of the earths human population.
Interesting. From what you post, however, he makes a pretty strong case for a legitimate use of a pseudonym. Publishing under another name is not necessarily sketchy, and in fact it has a looong history going back thousands of years. In this case there was hardly any deception, because he merely spelled his real name backwards.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
"Publishing under another name is not necessarily sketchy, "
As in the famous Student of statistics fame, who wanted to keep his research separate from his employer.
That was in 2018. This is 2019, so it's 11 years now.
Even if a broken clock is right twice a day, you still have to be wary of any info from sites that are well known to be biased; and that goes for other side too, from Buzzfeed to HuffPost, Salon, Mic, Mother Jones, Vox, The Guardian, etc..
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Since the hoax was climate constant, why does the GH theory need to be correct for climate change?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Not only that...white man LOL. Gee, "global warming" happened before the industrial revolution...go figure.
Guess what? I may be a registered Democrat (and proudly and Independent for decades before that) but I'm no 'socialist' or 'communist' or any of the above. I'm not dumb though and I'm not wrong, and I think I'm far from alone in what I had to say here. Also the people you're referring to are the same ones who voted for Trump, and that more or less proves that they're too short-sighted to be making big decisions for the rest of our species.
Is that the best you can do? Was there a point to this comment? Or are you as unintelligent as it makes you seem? I'm giving you an opportunity here to show you have better than a room-temperature IQ, are you going to rise to that, or are you just going to continue being pointlessly insulting? Not everything is a joke, old son.
Find better sources.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
How about you try to prove what the poster said was wrong
How many times do I have to prove him wrong before it's reasonable to assume what he's saying is bullshit? 10? 20? It's probably been that many by now.
In the real world if you act like a denialst repeatedly then it's a reasonable assumption that something linked to from an ovbiously incrediably biased source is clearly denialist bullshit.
You know this too and that makes you as bad as he is. You very well know that it's easier to spew bullshit to rebut it. However you won't admit to that because you want your bullshit to "win".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Most of what you say is true, of course. CO2 is not a danger to animal life at the levels have now, nor is it going to go up to those levels. But, the fact that you could swim in coca-cola without suffering any immediate damage is not really that relevant. Yes, where there is plant growth are getting greener because CO2 is more readily available to grow on. But other areas are getting drier, so less green.
None of this changes the key reality that CO2 levels are now higher than for, I think 400k years, that global temperatures track very well with CO2 levels. There are a number of ways to establish cause and effect, which is not the way you state. We know why CO2 is increasing, we know how much it is increasing by both as a percentage and an actual amount. And we know where it is coming from, because we can measure the production of it both my humanity and other sources. It's not coming from the ocean. It's coming from fossil fuels.
Your last sentence is the key one. It is wrong and untrue. Sprinkling it at the end of a set of mostly true, but largely unrelated facts does not make it true.
No, don't be an idiot, you can't "educate some others."
Education is not a cup that a passerby can pick up and fill, not even a teacher chosen by the student can pick it up and fill it.
The student has to fill their own cup. You can't do it for them. You can't choose to educate others. It is an irrational and false belief in your control over them.
If they're not interested in the knowledge, preaching is exactly the only thing you might do that would have an influence!
So, when you say "CO2 doesn't cause warming", you meant in the past, and not now. You are incorrect about warming since 2000. There is ample evidence that this statement is wrong. Please go and google for it. You didn't refute any things I said, because I haven't commented on this thread before.
14.4F is 10C
You appear to have missed a minus symbol
(14.4F 32) × 5/9 = -9.778C
Just another day in Paradise
LOL! Nope. It is a difference. Using a negative to show the direction of the difference is a different thing; often useful, but not for pedantic corrections. The difference between 5 and 10 is 5; the difference between 10 and 5 is also 5. Sometimes in a formula you will use -5, because in the context it is useful. But outside of context, you're just making false claims.
If true it would really make the conversion formula easier for schoolchildren. But it isn't.
I understand you can't do the math yourself, but simply use an online unit conversion tool with some examples near freezing and near boiling and find out.
You can't imagine that a person would do this, but I did actually compare the difference at near the global average surface temperature, and also near freezing, to find out how big the difference was in this case in order to find out if it was worth mentioning. And you throw out "hurr durrr" from memory, and fell right on your face.
AC wasn't me, but he's right, and you're wrong...still.
Just another day in Paradise