Ancient Climate Change Triggered Warming That Lasted Thousands of Years (phys.org) 198
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.
The Neantherdals Were Way Ahead of Us (Score:4, Funny)
No wonder they slaughtered mammoths, it was to decrease methane emissions!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Please for humanity rethink what thought brain your tried with the regards of not only human survival but survival to the world and continuing with science & progress- we make contact with aliens? We nev
Nothing is quite as funny (Score:1)
As a sanctimonious do gooder that has no clue about what's going on.
Re: (Score:1)
"you take thing like environments better than this seriously with rational conscience minds."
One of us just had a stroke, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
This not funny, you take thing like environments better than this seriously with rational conscience minds. For without rationality we have no way to continue forward as civiliation. Do it require the carbon credit? Reduce? Reuse? Recycle? There is many option here, joke is not way to make thing better.
Mash no like joke, mash make people serious, serious people better.
Or was that the joke?
It can be tough to tell these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Mash no like joke, mash make people serious, serious people better. Or was that the joke? It can be tough to tell these days.
I think you've just been had by a troll account. There are about 40 variants on the msmash userid. This is one of them.
Re:The Neantherdals Were Way Ahead of Us (Score:4, Informative)
There were no Neanderthals 56 million years ago.
Our direct ancestors from that epoch were lemurs.
Re: (Score:1)
Speak for yourself Lemur Boy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your basal population is surely basil.
That said, they might not actually be the same lemurs.
Re: (Score:1)
If god created us then why is he still here?
Yep Back In The Day When SUV's Roamed The Earth (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The raised too many methane-dispensing brontosaurs for excavation work.
Damn baby-neanderthal boomer Flintstones ruined it for everyone.
Here we go again (Score:3, Funny)
Man, those Chinese climate hoaxers just don't know when to quit do they?
Re: (Score:3)
American hoaxes, Russian hoaxes... all made in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the world survived just fine. It's merely most of the things living upon it that died off.
Re: (Score:2)
Less than 1% of sentients survived or less...
Less than less than 1%? That's pretty low.
Title is a bit off. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The scary bit is the part about going extinct, not what someone thinks about it in a billion years. But then that was obvious.
Re: Title is a bit off. (Score:1)
Is it ? Perhaps I'm getting nihilist in my old age but who cares really ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
What happened to all the people who claimed the world was going to end in 2012?
Oh, that's right. They were all wrong, and they all shut their car-holes.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That was in 2018. This is 2019, so it's 11 years now.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, OK my bad. She should express the countdown to the end in days rather than years so it is easier to keep track.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You prefer your science headlines with wild speculation, simply because it's more alarmist? You understand that this will just erode trust in climate science right?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they title should NOT be.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, what action can stop this? It seems that 58M years ago, with human emissions non-existent, the climate still changed. What could have prevented this 58M million years ago?
Re: (Score:1)
better yet, what caused it? and is that really what's causing it now?
and no matter what anyone says, i'll take the extra 14 degrees. it's better than 2 mile deep glaciers down to mid USA.
Re: Title is a bit off. (Score:1)
In a billion years, the sun will expand and reach closer to the Earth. THAT will be your source of global warming as the oceans are slowly boiled off into outer space!
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable timescale (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
This is really pretty funny. Well done.
If we can live on Mars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not saying much because we currently lack the technology to live on Mars. It's a goal but we're not there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we do have the tech required to allow us to live on Mars.
Unfortunately, we lack the tech to get enough of that other tech to Mars to support even a small population...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we do have the tech required to allow us to live on Mars.
Not in a self-sustaining way, really.
Re: (Score:2)
So your actual answer is, "No, but I'm going to insist on yes even though I have enough information to explain why I'm wrong."
Re: So if its a natural cycle (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
He's not new, he's said this shit before, no it was not an honest question.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
The same way that people eventually die from natural causes, so how can someone shooting people be related to people dying now?
Re: (Score:2)
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 cal
If anything the world has gotten safer (Score:2)
At least with regard to natural disasters
https://ourworldindata.org/upl... [ourworldindata.org]
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
Re: (Score:1)
14.4F is 10C at ~ mean global surface temperature, not sure where you came up with 5-9C.
My advice, stop complaining about the units, and pay more attention to context. What the fuck did you do, convert at freezing?!
Re: (Score:2)
14.4F is 10C
You appear to have missed a minus symbol
(14.4F 32) × 5/9 = -9.778C
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
AC wasn't me, but he's right, and you're wrong...still.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Question (Score:1)
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).
Re: Question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your link corrects nothing posted (Score:1)
None of the claims in that Wiki post address what the article I posted was saying. It's not saying there is no warming - it's saying proof of DANGEROUS rates of warming, like the hot spot over the tropics, have not occurred as they were predicted. In short all of the worst effects of warming that were supposed to cause real issues have not happened, and in fact what is happening is causing weather to become less severe, not more... none of that is addressed by your religious Wiki page.
Re: (Score:2)
Find better sources.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh I live internet climate "skeptics". You neither know nor understand the science yet are "skeptical" of it.
And yet when an organisation wiht the name "Science and Environmental Policy Project" which is clearly from the name a political thinktank says something like you guzzle it greedily down.
You're not a skeptic, you're only skeptical about things which challenege your political worldview. IOW you're just another foolish partisan blowhard.
Re: Why is that not positive?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 rebu
Important to teach even in the face of hate (Score:1)
Never try to "prove" shit to idiots.
The important thing about posting in the face of those unwilling to debate or learn, is that you might educate some other readers on the fence, even if the idiot learns nothing...
Interesting that I am the only person posting educational links, I wonder what that says about the desire of others to teach vs. preach.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Man's fault (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it did, you fucking moron...for well-understood reasons. But right now it is humans who are causing it.
Check back with us when you graduate from Grade 8 science, if that ever happens.
Dinosaurus farts (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Any idea how much methane gets out in one rip?
A typical human fart is about 100ml and is about 7% methane. That is about 0.0003 mole, or about 0.005 grams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Homer isn't your typical human.
You don't get flatulence from donuts.
Beans cause farts because they contain oligosaccharide which is difficult to digest, and reaches the lower intestines intact, where it is metabolized by bacteria.
Donuts are the opposite. They contain simple sugars and refined starch that rapidly breaks down in the upper intestines. There is little left for the bacteria.
Re: (Score:2)
MMmmm... donuts with beans.
Re:GH Theory Outdated & Incomplete (Score:5, Informative)
There is a Wikipedia entry: [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Genetic Fallacy, much? https://www.logicalfallacies.i... [logicalfallacies.info]
So opposite of the boy who cried wolf then?
Re: (Score:2)
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..
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re:GH Theory Outdated & Incomplete (Score:4, Informative)
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. [washingtonpost.com]
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.”
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/st... [wnd.com]
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, addi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: GH Theory Outdated & Incomplete (Score:2)
"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.
Re: "Oh goodie we can just ignore it now!" (Score:3)
Throughout history greed wins Everytime. Especially among Americans who consider it socialism to do anything about it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: CO2 is a trace gas, and a weak greenhouse gas (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.