Earth hasn't heated up this fast since the dinosaurs' end

Carbon is pouring into the atmosphere faster than at any time in the past 66 million years—since the dinosaurs went extinct—according to a new analysis of the geologic record. The study underscores just how profoundly humans are changing Earth’s history.
The carbon emissions rate is ten times greater today than during the prehistoric hot period that is the closest precedent for today's greenhouse warming.
That period, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), was marked by a massive release of the Earth's natural carbon stores into the atmosphere, probably dues to volcanic eruptions and methane gas release. The excess carbon triggered a 5°C (9°F) temperature increase, along with drought, floods, insect plagues, and extinctions.
The new analysis of the sediment record concludes that the carbon rush at the start of the PETM extended over at least 4,000 years. That translates to about 1.1 additional gigatons of carbon per year. Today, fossil fuel burning and other human activity release 10 gigatons of carbon annually.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nge-petm-global-warming-carbon-emission-rate/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One hopes that the loss of half the species of shelled organisms on the seabed was an artifact of the exact location of the core.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some more grim predictions. Climate scientists agree that humanity is about to cause an equal or greater rise in sea level, but they have tended to assume that such a large increase would take centuries, at least. The new paper written by James E. Hansen, the retired NASA climate scientist, and his colleagues, argues that it could happen far more rapidly, with the worst case being several feet of sea-level rise over the next 50 years, followed by increases so precipitous that they would force humanity to beat a hasty retreat from the coasts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/science/global-warming-sea-level-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html

Paper: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Geological or paleontological sea level change data is among the most problematic, because it is so difficult to measure in the first place, and so difficult to distinguish from land level change in the second. The data support here is dodgy.

Attention paid to surface water cooling from the recently accelerating glacial melt seems overdue - at least, I don't run into much in the lay media.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

heated up?
Crazy runs deep at national geographic these days.
The insane headline is unneeded.
If the article is about atmospheric carbon enrichment, why the misleading headline?

 

That's a nice graph, but what exactly are you calling "crazy" about staid ol' Nat Geo?

 

bias

 

Where? Do you have an example handy?

Why the pretty but irrelevant graph ?

 

Two new studies have amplified concerns about how quickly warming Arctic soils could become major contributors of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, causing still greater warming.
In a major international study published last week in Nature Geoscience, a team of researchers from regions ranging from Alaska to Russia report that permafrost is thawing faster than expected — even in some of the very coldest areas.
In other words, the permafrost has millions of tons of dead plants that are just waiting for a thaw to finish decomposing and release their CO2 into the air.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-much-faster-than-expected-scientists-warn/

 

OK
I'll bite
Prove that:
Earth Hasn’t Heated Up This Fast Since the Dinosaurs’ End.
Can you?

Do you not tire of bullshit headlines that have nothing to do with the meat of the article?
The headline is pure bullshit and has no basis in real science.
The earth has heated up much faster during every measured DO event.

Do not so easily be hoodwinked by hyperbolic claims of "what might happen if".

 

Well, not no basis. They are naively accepting the well established and physically inevitable link between CO2 levels and equilibrium temperature, whereby according to basic physical theory a faster change in CO2 levels leads to a faster transition to equilibrium. They seemed to have assumed that unwittingly, but not wrongly.

Not according to your graph, in post 5, or anything else you have posted. Do you have evidence for that?

 

From NASA:
About 11,600 years ago, the temperature in Greenland rapidly rose by 7°C (13°F) in a few decades,
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-3/temperature-changes/explanation-2.php

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This graphic shows 13 D-O Events (in red) and 5 Heinrich Events. The Younger Dryas is circled.

From wiki:
In the Northern Hemisphere, they(DO events) take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see,[3]Stewart, chapter 13), where a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event



We ain't warmed as fast for thousands of years, and certainly not during the time of industrialization.
However, during the holocene, we have had "Bond events" Which are normally about 20% of the DO changes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The graph in #5 was to show how much colder it is now than during the "Dinosaurs’ End".

Seriously dude
You should know this stuff!
Really basic.


....................
Turn your lights off--------the biggest source of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 is electricity production!
Prometheus ain't got nothing on the responsible journalists.
Remember how he pissed off his nephew?
(so much for forethought?)

 

Once again, since this seems to so totally confuse you: Global. Global. Global.

Give up on the Greenland temperature record. You keep posting the same stuff, and it keeps illustrating the same problem with your "thinking".

Which is bizarre in its total irrelevance.

 

OK
Find a place where DO events did not happen.

We use the proxies we have instead of making up some imaginary world and living in it.

 

Where they were not big and fast, you mean. Southern Hemisphere. Most of the Northern Hemisphere including the Pacific Ocean in general. All of Asia except the northern parts nearer Greenland.

And don't bother reposting those findings of traces in the record. Instead, reread your own Wiki link in post #12. For the third or fourth time this is pointed out to you - the global traces of the dramatic DO events over the Greenland ice cap were -> slower <- and also ->much weaker<- and also -> delayed<-. The farther from Greenland, the harder they are to discern in the records. They were barely visible in the Antarctic cores - only noticed when searched for, carefully.

The large, fast DO events over Greenland were not globally events, not globally large and fast. They weren't even trends over Greenland, but spikes - discrete events, preceded and followed by long cooling times.

 

Dr. Dale Ward, Lecturer / Research Scientist
Department of Atmospheric Sciences http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/dryas.html

Which brings us back to:
The headline that started this thread was, and is, and will forever remain, total bullshit!

 

The claim there is that global average atmospheric temperatures dropped by 2C, then rebounded by 3C, for a net gain of at most (other factors, such as subsequent cooling, reduce the number) of 1C in a thousand years. This fluctuation in atmospheric temperatures, overlying the heating trend of the earth as a whole, was an artifact of the absorption of the increasing heat by melting ice in the Arctic - the earth heating up over a thousand years, with the heat first absorbed by the melting ice in the Arctic and the ocean at lower and southern latitudes, then released to the air fairly quickly as the ocean currents were restored to contact with the atmosphere and the supply of meltwater diminished with the disappearance of its source.

This falls into the category that includes large El Ninos, volcanic eruptions, and the like.

Notice that the "bullshit" headline you disparage is (probably by chance, but still) more accurate and informative than your own posting - it does not confuse the effects on an average of a large but limited and local outlier fluctuation in one variable with a global trend in all variables (or even the one), it talks about the "earth" heating up rather than atmospheric temperatures only, and so forth.

 

Which posted do you think inaccurate?

 

All your interpretations of the graphs you posted, for starters.

Say, this sentence: "The earth has heated up much faster during every measured DO event".

It is false.

Meanwhile, the headline you disparage is not false, merely a step removed from the findings reported. It is a bad headline, true, but not a presentation of falsehood - and in particular, does not display the dismissal of all consideration of truth and falsehood that would earn it the label bullshit. The headline writer appears to care about whether or not what they wrote is true.

 

The first time "DO event" is used in this thread is in post 10, but no one tells what a DO event is. Must be a buze word for some inner circle. Please define it for us outsiders.