Longevity of Anthropogenic CO2

[westwall]

During the PETM extinction event that took place 55 million years ago, the oceans were warming just as they are today.

The 2001 documentary “The Day the Oceans Boiled” examined what was new evidence in 1999. [4] Scientists had discovered that the expected rise in global temperature in the near future could be only the start of a much greater increase. The evidence uncovered warned that our Earth’s temperature could rise by 20 degrees within the next three generations. The documentary follows scientists uncovering evidence for what caused massive, abrupt climate shifts that happened 55 million years ago. *This was the last time the Earth’s temperature accelerated quickly, causing many animals to shrink, with horses becoming the size of modern domestic cats. It took the planet 60,000 years to cool down again.

Sediment samples drilled from the ocean sea floor provide scientists with the ability to uncover what took place in our Earth’s history hundreds of millions of years ago. In 1999, Santo Bains of Oxford University’s Department of Earth Sciences was looking for clues as to what happened 55 million years ago during the Paleocene-Eocene. In particular, he was interested in one specific sediment core named core 690. Core 690 was to have the most detailed record of the Paleocene-Eocene climate change event. Bains took one sediment sample per centimeter of the entire core 690. Buried in the sludge along the bottom of the sea there are stories of the past. Within this sediment there are tiny sea creatures – deep-ocean microscopic foraminifera – that survived the asteroids that killed the dinosaurs. However, 55 million years ago, half of the tiny forams went extinct. Locked in their shells lies the story of why. As their shells were made of the carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea, their detailed composition revealed both the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the water temperature at the time of extinction. Bains dropped the tiny shells into acid, releasing the carbon dioxide that had last seen the atmosphere 55 million years ago.

Bains’s scientific analysis confirmed that at the time the mammals shrank, the atmospheric carbon levels had suddenly risen abruptly – causing a rapid warming of ocean waters. As he examined more samples, Bains discovered something extraordinary. There was not just one sudden rise in temperature. There were three. Temperatures accelerated dramatically in three succinct steps over a period of just a few of hundred years for a total temperature increase of approximately 8ºC. The rise in atmospheric carbon was just as dramatic. The jumps in Bains’s graph add up to one and a half trillion tonnes of carbon. His discovery was the first time this was recognized in the geological record. Where did all of the carbon come from? Methane hydrates are believed to be the only explanation. Methane hydrates quickly decomposed, releasing vast amounts of carbon into the oceans and into the atmosphere.

The only thing that died during the PETM were a few species of Foram (little creatures that you view through a microscope). Additionally the extinction was not global it was localised. All the rest of the planet blossomed. Speciation ran rampant. Temperature was indeed much higher than today and looky there LIFE LOVED THE HEAT!


"The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time."

 

[Old Rocks]

64% of the increase from just the burning of fossil fuels
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Ummmm, that's 64% of the increase.

I simply am not going to dumb this down any more than I already have.

Damn. Just like Walleyes, you get caught in your lies and you tell more to try to shore up your nonsense.

You stated that anthropogenic CO2 amounted to ~3% of the present total.

The site you claimes stated this states that just from the burning of fossil fuels, 64% for the present increase is accounted for.

The increase at present is over 100 ppm.

That is about 27% of the present total.

The CDIAC states that the burning of fossil fuels has created 64% of the present increase.

That is about 64 ppm of the present 390 ppm.

And that is about 17% of the present total of 390 ppm.

That is a long way from ~3%.

You are pulling numbers from you ass, Si.

 

[Si modo]

64% of the increase from just the burning of fossil fuels
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Ummmm, that's 64% of the increase.

I simply am not going to dumb this down any more than I already have.

Damn. Just like Walleyes, you get caught in your lies and you tell more to try to shore up your nonsense.

You stated that anthropogenic CO2 amounted to ~3% of the present total.

The site you claimes stated this states that just from the burning of fossil fuels, 64% for the present increase is accounted for.

The increase at present is over 100 ppm.

That is about 27% of the present total.

The CDIAC states that the burning of fossil fuels has created 64% of the present increase.

That is about 64 ppm of the present 390 ppm.

And that is about 17% of the present total of 390 ppm.

That is a long way from ~3%.

You are pulling numbers from you ass, Si.

That's a loooong way from .... let's see, first you said 'most', then you said 40%, then you said 64%.

I went with the first set of numbers I saw that seemed not to have been based on IPCC shit (other than the 1850 baseline). It came to 3%.

Now, would you like to try telling us again that "most is from man'? Because, that is simply a lie or more indication that you have no idea how to interpret what you read.

 

[Old Rocks]

Incapable of reading, aren't you.

40% is the total increase from 280 ppm. The 100 ppm increase is about 40% of 280 ppm.

The AGW portion of the present 390 ppm is about 27%, of which the burning of fossil fuels represent 64%, which figures to a total fossil fuel burning contribution of about 17% of the present total.

Grade school math. And you claim to be a scientist.

 

[Si modo]

Incapable of reading, aren't you.

40% is the total increase from 280 ppm. The 100 ppm increase is about 40% of 280 ppm.

The AGW portion of the present 390 ppm is about 27%, of which the burning of fossil fuels represent 64%, which figures to a total fossil fuel burning contribution of about 17% of the present total.

Grade school math. And you claim to be a scientist.

And, perhaps you can explain how far 17% is from your claim that most CO2 is from man?

Idiot.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you are stating that the burning of fossil fuel is the only way that we are increasing the CO2 load of the atmosphere.

Damn, you are one lying old broad.

You were just shown up with grade school math.

 

[Si modo]

Rocks says the page I linked to does not exist.

Hi, you have received -63 reputation points from Old Rocks.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Naw, you just have been caught in too many lies. The page does not exist. What a lying old broad you are.

Regards,
Old Rocks

Note: This is an automated message.

Here's the exact link I used in my previous post. Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations


Shhhh, Rocks says it does not exist, though.

 

[Si modo]

And you are stating that the burning of fossil fuel is the only way that we are increasing the CO2 load of the atmosphere.

Damn, you are one lying old broad.

You were just shown up with grade school math.

I suppose I will need to do yet more dumbing down.

No, what I said is you lied. When you said most of the CO2 is from man - that we are the 'primary source' of CO2, I challenged it, and you failed.

Shall I post your initial lie in this thread that I challenged?

Nevermind, I will.

Practicing being stupid? You really don't need the practice. CO2 from any source will last the same amount of time. However, at present, we are the primary source. That could change as the feedbacks melt the permafrost and the Arctic Ocean clathrates kick in.

Idiot.

 

[wirebender]

Link to source?

Each study is listed down the left hand side of the graph. What is it about you that you find it impossible to extract data if it is presented to you in the form of a graph?

 

[westwall]

Link to source?

Each study is listed down the left hand side of the graph. What is it about you that you find it impossible to extract data if it is presented to you in the form of a graph?

I think extracting information period is an issue

 

[wirebender]

I think extracting information period is an issue

I guess so. 36 peer reviewed studies listed showing an average residence time of less than 10 years and he is claiming thousands of years.

Zealots.