A 45 million year record of Arctic sea temperatures and ice melt

[Crick]

A new study uses AI and machine learning to examine data from archaean lipid membranes providing surface temperature, CO2 levels and oxygen isotope content correlation over the past 45 million years.

ABSTRACT
Cenozoic evolution of the Antarctic ice sheets is thought to be driven primarily by long-term changes in radiative forcing, but the tectonic evolution of Antarctica may also have played a substantive role. While deep-sea foraminiferal oxygen isotope records provide a combined measure of global continental ice volume and ocean temperature, they do not provide direct insights into non-radiative influences on Antarctic Ice Sheet dynamics. Here we present an Antarctic compilation of Cenozoic upper-ocean temperature for the Ross Sea and offshore Wilkes Land, generated by membrane lipid distributions from archaea. We find trends of ocean temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen isotopes largely co-vary. However, this relationship is less clear for the late Oligocene, when high-latitude cooling occurred despite interpretation of oxygen isotopes suggesting global warming and ice-volume loss. We propose this retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet occurred in response to a tectonically driven marine transgression, with warm surface waters precluding marine-based ice-sheet growth. Marine ice-sheet expansion occurred only when ocean temperatures further cooled during the Oligocene–Miocene transition, with cold orbital conditions and low atmospheric carbon dioxide. Our results support a threshold response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, below which Antarctica’s marine ice sheets grow, and above which ocean warming exacerbates their retreat. "

Climatic and tectonic drivers of late Oligocene Antarctic ice volume - Nature Geoscience (Sorry, but this is a Nature Geoscience paywall)

This study supports the earlier study finding a high likelihood that CO2 levels above 400 ppm are likely to completely eliminate the Antarctic ice shelves which will lead to massively increased glacial ice sheet loss and large rises in sea levels.

 

[Votto]

Good.

 

[1srelluc]

Blah, AI sees us all as demons anyway.

 

[sealybobo]

A new study uses AI and machine learning to examine data from archaean lipid membranes providing surface temperature, CO2 levels and oxygen isotope content correlation over the past 45 million years.

?Cenozoic evolution of the Antarctic ice sheets is thought to be driven primarily by long-term changes in radiative forcing, but the tectonic evolution of Antarctica may also have played a substantive role. While deep-sea foraminiferal oxygen isotope records provide a combined measure of global continental ice volume and ocean temperature, they do not provide direct insights into non-radiative influences on Antarctic Ice Sheet dynamics. Here we present an Antarctic compilation of Cenozoic upper-ocean temperature for the Ross Sea and offshore Wilkes Land, generated by membrane lipid distributions from archaea. We find trends of ocean temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen isotopes largely co-vary. However, this relationship is less clear for the late Oligocene, when high-latitude cooling occurred despite interpretation of oxygen isotopes suggesting global warming and ice-volume loss. We propose this retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet occurred in response to a tectonically driven marine transgression, with warm surface waters precluding marine-based ice-sheet growth. Marine ice-sheet expansion occurred only when ocean temperatures further cooled during the Oligocene–Miocene transition, with cold orbital conditions and low atmospheric carbon dioxide. Our results support a threshold response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, below which Antarctica’s marine ice sheets grow, and above which ocean warming exacerbates their retreat. "

Climatic and tectonic drivers of late Oligocene Antarctic ice volume - Nature Geoscience (Sorry, but this is a Nature Geoscience paywall)

This study supports the earlier study finding a high likelihood that CO2 levels above 400 ppm are likely to completely eliminate the Antarctic ice shelves which will lead to massively increased glacial ice sheet loss and large rises in sea levels.

This guy who wrote a book back in the day on how the planet was going to become uninhabitable for humans if we keep doing what we were doing was on NPR. After talking to all the climate scientists, they have all concluded that the worst case scenario isn't happening thank god. But things are still bad. We have a ways to go.

Yes, climate change is very real and poses a serious threat to the health of our planet. However, researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder have a simple message for scientists who focus on the most dire effects of global warming: chill out.

Yes, climate change is bad -- but scientists must 'chill' when it comes to doomsday scenarios, experts say

Study authors say many scientists are focusing way too much of the worst-case scenarios of climate change and environmental shifts all around the globe.

studyfinds.org

 

[DGS49]

Whether you buy into the Doomsday scenario or not, the U.S. is merely a peripheral factor in the global quest to reduce greenhouse gases. For every American who prudently turns his thermostat up or down, there is someone out in the boonies in India or China or Africa or South America who is praying to the sun god for a coal-fired electric plant so that he can get some light, or a way of heating his house with coal, or a vehicle that he can use to go to the nearest town.

In short, it makes NO DIFFERENCE what we do in the U.S., because our efforts are dwarfed by developments in the Third World and the Developing world (much more than half the world's population). So to figuratively shoot ourselves in the foot, stupidly shifting to EV's and whatnot is pointless and HARMS THE WORKING CLASS most of all.

Fuck it. Keep the F-250 and drive the shit out of it.

 

[Flash]

A new study uses AI and machine learning to examine data from archaean lipid membranes providing surface temperature, CO2 levels and oxygen isotope content correlation over the past 45 million years.

ABSTRACT
Cenozoic evolution of the Antarctic ice sheets is thought to be driven primarily by long-term changes in radiative forcing, but the tectonic evolution of Antarctica may also have played a substantive role. While deep-sea foraminiferal oxygen isotope records provide a combined measure of global continental ice volume and ocean temperature, they do not provide direct insights into non-radiative influences on Antarctic Ice Sheet dynamics. Here we present an Antarctic compilation of Cenozoic upper-ocean temperature for the Ross Sea and offshore Wilkes Land, generated by membrane lipid distributions from archaea. We find trends of ocean temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen isotopes largely co-vary. However, this relationship is less clear for the late Oligocene, when high-latitude cooling occurred despite interpretation of oxygen isotopes suggesting global warming and ice-volume loss. We propose this retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet occurred in response to a tectonically driven marine transgression, with warm surface waters precluding marine-based ice-sheet growth. Marine ice-sheet expansion occurred only when ocean temperatures further cooled during the Oligocene–Miocene transition, with cold orbital conditions and low atmospheric carbon dioxide. Our results support a threshold response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, below which Antarctica’s marine ice sheets grow, and above which ocean warming exacerbates their retreat. "

Climatic and tectonic drivers of late Oligocene Antarctic ice volume - Nature Geoscience (Sorry, but this is a Nature Geoscience paywall)

This study supports the earlier study finding a high likelihood that CO2 levels above 400 ppm are likely to completely eliminate the Antarctic ice shelves which will lead to massively increased glacial ice sheet loss and large rises in sea levels.

My God Moon Bat, we are all going to die!!! Die I say!

You had better stop using any electricity or driving a vehicle or heating or cooling your home. Stop using anything delivered by a vehicle. Stop using anything manufactured. Stop eating food produced and delivered by modern agriculture. Do it! Start being a hunter gather to save the planet.

 

[ding]

This guy who wrote a book back in the day on how the planet was going to become uninhabitable for humans if we keep doing what we were doing was on NPR. After talking to all the climate scientists, they have all concluded that the worst case scenario isn't happening thank god. But things are still bad. We have a ways to go.

Yes, climate change is very real and poses a serious threat to the health of our planet. However, researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder have a simple message for scientists who focus on the most dire effects of global warming: chill out.

Yes, climate change is bad -- but scientists must 'chill' when it comes to doomsday scenarios, experts say

Study authors say many scientists are focusing way too much of the worst-case scenarios of climate change and environmental shifts all around the globe.

studyfinds.org

This is a step in the right direction for you. Much of the last 3 million years has been much colder because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation. Our present temperature is not representative of the earth’s climate of the past 3 million years. It’s at the warm end of the climate the earth’s present landmass and ocean circulation is configured to produce.

 

[Crick]

Whether you buy into the Doomsday scenario or not, the U.S. is merely a peripheral factor in the global quest to reduce greenhouse gases. For every American who prudently turns his thermostat up or down, there is someone out in the boonies in India or China or Africa or South America who is praying to the sun god for a coal-fired electric plant so that he can get some light, or a way of heating his house with coal, or a vehicle that he can use to go to the nearest town.

In short, it makes NO DIFFERENCE what we do in the U.S., because our efforts are dwarfed by developments in the Third World and the Developing world (much more than half the world's population). So to figuratively shoot ourselves in the foot, stupidly shifting to EV's and whatnot is pointless and HARMS THE WORKING CLASS most of all.

Fuck it. Keep the F-250 and drive the shit out of it.

Of course it makes a difference.

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Greenhouse Gas Emissions (in million metric tons, 2019 data):*​

1. China — 9,877
2. United States — 4,745
3. India — 2,310
4. Russia — 1,640
5. Japan — 1,056
6. Germany — 644
7. South Korea — 586
8. Iran — 583
9. Canada — 571
10. Saudi Arabia — 495

Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Country 2024

 

[sealybobo]

This is a step in the right direction for you. Much of the last 3 million years has been much colder because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation. Our present temperature is not representative of the earth’s climate of the past 3 million years. It’s at the warm end of the climate the earth’s present landmass and ocean circulation is configured to produce.

But consider this. All the pollution we've put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is still there. It takes forever for it to go away. And if you weighed it, I guess it's more than the waste we have here on earth.

In 2021, about 67 million tons of pollution were emitted into the atmosphere in the United States. These emissions mostly contribute to the formation of ozone and particles, the deposition of acids, and visibility impairment.

It's not cool that we are doing this. AND, the cost of going green is nothing compared to how much we will make and save. Make because it's an economy. Save because think about all the lung cancer and other problems we won't have to pay for both financially and physically.

 

[ding]

But consider this. All the pollution we've put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is still there. It takes forever for it to go away. And if you weighed it, I guess it's more than the waste we have here on earth.

In 2021, about 67 million tons of pollution were emitted into the atmosphere in the United States. These emissions mostly contribute to the formation of ozone and particles, the deposition of acids, and visibility impairment.

It's not cool that we are doing this. AND, the cost of going green is nothing compared to how much we will make and save. Make because it's an economy. Save because think about all the lung cancer and other problems we won't have to pay for both financially and physically.

I thought they were fighting CO2. Isn’t that what going green is all about?

 

[sealybobo]

I thought they were fighting CO2. Isn’t that what going green is all about?

Yes, I guess. I don't know. Is it? You seem to be the intelligent guy who goes against scientific consensus.



Global warming is also giving us cancer. Going Green would mean millions would live longer and healthier lives and it would save US money. But you cons don't see that right?

 

[sealybobo]

I thought they were fighting CO2. Isn’t that what going green is all about?

Turns out you liars are effective

Media coverage of climate change can influence Americans to adopt more accurate beliefs about the environment, but the information doesn't stay with them for long, according to a new report.

After reading accurate articles about climate change, Americans may see it more as a problem that impacts them and lean toward supporting the government's climate change policies.

"It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it," said Thomas Wood, one of the study's authors and an associate professor of political science at The Ohio State University.

But those changes are quickly reversed when participants are exposed to articles that doubted climate change.

 

[ding]

Yes, I guess. I don't know. Is it? You seem to be the intelligent guy who goes against scientific consensus.



Global warming is also giving us cancer. Going Green would mean millions would live longer and healthier lives and it would save US money. But you cons don't see that right?

Ask your buddies why the last interglacial cycle was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today and see what they say.

Because if what they say is true, then we should be hotter than the last interglacial cycle because we have 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2, right?

 

[sealybobo]

I thought they were fighting CO2. Isn’t that what going green is all about?

This guy admits things aren't as bad as he/they originally predicted



New York Times science writer David Wallace-Wells brings us some new thinking on global warming — and it isn't all bad. He's been called an alarmist in the past for his warnings about the consequences of dumping carbon into the atmosphere. But in a new article, Wallace-Wells writes that the cost of solar and wind energy has fallen dramatically, and scientists now say the pace of global warming in coming decades will be slower than previously forecast.

There are you happy now? We concede it isn't as bad as we predicted it would be. But does that mean we should do nothing?

I would love to hear a sincere response. Don't just dig in and keep denying man made climate change is real.

 

[ding]

Turns out you liars are effective

Media coverage of climate change can influence Americans to adopt more accurate beliefs about the environment, but the information doesn't stay with them for long, according to a new report.

After reading accurate articles about climate change, Americans may see it more as a problem that impacts them and lean toward supporting the government's climate change policies.

"It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it," said Thomas Wood, one of the study's authors and an associate professor of political science at The Ohio State University.

But those changes are quickly reversed when participants are exposed to articles that doubted climate change.

Why is it 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the past?

 

[sealybobo]

Ask your buddies why the last interglacial cycle was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today and see what they say.

Because if what they say is true, then we should be hotter than the last interglacial cycle because we have 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2, right?

Well the planet was also 5000 times hotter than it is now in the very beginning. So what? In other words, the planet might cool or heat up on it's own without our interference? Yea that's true it could. But nothing we can do about that.

We're talking about us heating up the planet so it fucks with our lungs, crops, water supply, etc......

How did humans do during that last interglacial cycle?

 

[sealybobo]

Why is it 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the past?

Was it? What years was that?

 

[ding]

This guy admits things aren't as bad as he/they originally predicted



New York Times science writer David Wallace-Wells brings us some new thinking on global warming — and it isn't all bad. He's been called an alarmist in the past for his warnings about the consequences of dumping carbon into the atmosphere. But in a new article, Wallace-Wells writes that the cost of solar and wind energy has fallen dramatically, and scientists now say the pace of global warming in coming decades will be slower than previously forecast.

There are you happy now? We concede it isn't as bad as we predicted it would be. But does that mean we should do nothing?

I would love to hear a sincere response. Don't just dig in and keep denying man made climate change is real.

My sincere response is that the geologic record does not support CO2 driving the planet’s climate. Land mass distribution and the resulting ocean circulation system does. The planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Most of the last 3 million years have been much much colder. Today’s temperatures are not representative of the earth’s climate.

 

[sealybobo]

Why is it 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than the past?

What do scientists say about this? What would they say to you? Not some salesperson on a political message board. Don't ask me. And post links please. Educate us.

 

[ding]

Well the planet was also 5000 times hotter than it is now in the very beginning. So what? In other words, the planet might cool or heat up on it's own without our interference? Yea that's true it could. But nothing we can do about that.

We're talking about us heating up the planet so it fucks with our lungs, crops, water supply, etc......

How did humans do during that last interglacial cycle?

Never before has the planet experienced bipolar glaciation. That just began 3 million years ago.