New Study: What’s Scarier than the Permian Extinction? Burn All the Fossil Fuels to Find Out.

[Divine Wind]

New Study: What’s Scarier than the Permian Extinction? Burn All the Fossil Fuels to Find Out.

If we burn all the fossil fuels “not only will the resultant climate change be faster than anything Earth has seen for millions of years, the climate that will exist is likely to have no natural counterpart, as far as we can tell, in at least the last 420 million years.” — Gavin Foster, Professor of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Southampton

*****
Back in the 1780s as coal-fired smoke stacks sprouted across England to belch their black soot into the hitherto virgin skies of Earth, it’s likely we had not an inkling of the destruction they were ultimately capable of unleashing:

Svante Arrhenius, by the late 19th Century, had hinted that coal burning might warm the Earth by a tiny bit in a few thousand years. But the very fossils we were digging up and burning at an ever-more-rapid pace warned of a different and far more ominous story (see video above). They hinted of a time when massive volumes of ancient carbon stored in the Earth were released into the atmosphere over the course of thousands of years. And that this release created such hot and toxic conditions that, for most living things, the Earth was no longer habitable.

Unsafe Warming

The Permian-Triassic Extinction of 252 million years ago was the worst hothouse catastrophe that has ever occurred in all of the geological record. It wiped out 96 percent of marine species and more than 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrates. It was the worst of many such hothouse events sparked by rising levels of greenhouse gasses that now serve as a clear warning in the fossil record of the dangers we invite.

https://robertscribb...ls-to-find-out/

Conservatives are suicidal.

As shitforbrains uses electricity to whine.

On device made of toxic metals and petroleum (plastic).

 

[Old Rocks]

New Study: What’s Scarier than the Permian Extinction? Burn All the Fossil Fuels to Find Out.

If we burn all the fossil fuels “not only will the resultant climate change be faster than anything Earth has seen for millions of years, the climate that will exist is likely to have no natural counterpart, as far as we can tell, in at least the last 420 million years.” — Gavin Foster, Professor of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Southampton

*****
Back in the 1780s as coal-fired smoke stacks sprouted across England to belch their black soot into the hitherto virgin skies of Earth, it’s likely we had not an inkling of the destruction they were ultimately capable of unleashing:

Svante Arrhenius, by the late 19th Century, had hinted that coal burning might warm the Earth by a tiny bit in a few thousand years. But the very fossils we were digging up and burning at an ever-more-rapid pace warned of a different and far more ominous story (see video above). They hinted of a time when massive volumes of ancient carbon stored in the Earth were released into the atmosphere over the course of thousands of years. And that this release created such hot and toxic conditions that, for most living things, the Earth was no longer habitable.

Unsafe Warming

The Permian-Triassic Extinction of 252 million years ago was the worst hothouse catastrophe that has ever occurred in all of the geological record. It wiped out 96 percent of marine species and more than 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrates. It was the worst of many such hothouse events sparked by rising levels of greenhouse gasses that now serve as a clear warning in the fossil record of the dangers we invite.

https://robertscribb...ls-to-find-out/

Conservatives are suicidal.

What a load of excrement. There is NO empirical evidence that supports the theory that global warming caused the extinction. There is TONS of empirical evidence to show that an ice age did. This is a special kind of stupid and only people who are true scientific cripples, who can't understand that computer models are nothing more than fiction, will believe this level of idiocy.

Of course, real scientists totally disagree with that.

Causes and consequences of extreme Permo-Triassic warming to globally equable climate and relation to the Permo-Triassic extinction and recovery

Causes and consequences of extreme Permo-Triassic warming to globally equable climate and relation to the Permo-Triassic extinction and recovery

• David L. Kidder, ,
• Thomas R. Worsley

Abstract
Permian waning of the low-latitude Alleghenian/Variscan/Hercynian orogenesis led to a long collisional orogeny gap that cut down the availability of chemically weatherable fresh silicate rock resulting in a high-CO2 atmosphere and global warming. The correspondingly reduced delivery of nutrients to the biosphere caused further increases in CO2 and warming. Melting of polar ice curtailed sinking of O2- and nutrient-rich cold brines while pole-to-equator thermal gradients weakened. Wind shear and associated wind-driven upwelling lessened, further diminishing productivity and carbon burial. As the Earth warmed, dry climates expanded to mid-latitudes, causing latitudinal expansion of the Ferrel circulation cell at the expense of the polar cell. Increased coastal evaporation generated O2- and nutrient-deficient warm saline bottom water (WSBW) and delivered it to a weakly circulating deep ocean. Warm, deep currents delivered ever more heat to high latitudes until polar sinking of cold water was replaced by upwelling WSBW. With the loss of polar sinking, the ocean was rapidly filled with WSBW that became increasingly anoxic and finally euxinic by the end of the Permian. Rapid incursion of WSBW could have produced ∼20 m of thermal expansion of the oceans, generating the well-documented marine transgression that flooded embayments in dry, hot Pangaean mid-latitudes. The flooding further increased WSBW production and anoxia, and brought that anoxic water onto the shelves. Release of CO2 from the Siberian traps and methane from clathrates below the warming ocean bottom sharply enhanced the already strong greenhouse. Increasingly frequent and powerful cyclonic storms mined upwelling high-latitude heat and released it to the atmosphere. That heat, trapped by overlying clouds of its own making, suggests complete breakdown of the dry polar cell. Resulting rapid and intense polar warming caused or contributed to extinction of the remaining latest Permian coal forests that could not migrate any farther poleward because of light limitations. Loss of water stored by the forests led to aquifer drainage, adding another ∼5 m to the transgression. Non-peat-forming vegetation survived at the newly moist poles. Climate feedback from the coal-forest extinction further intensified warmth, contributing to delayed biotic recovery that generally did not begin until mid-Triassic, but appears to have resumed first at high latitudes late in the Early Triassic. Current quantitative models fail to generate high-latitude warmth and so do not produce the chain of events we outline in this paper. Future quantitative modeling addressing factors such as polar cloudiness, increased poleward heat transport by deep water and its upwelling by cyclonic storms, and sustainable mid-latitude sinking of warm brines to promote anoxia, warming, and thermal expansion of deep water may more closely simulate conditions indicated by geological and paleontological data.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Siberian Traps and the End-Permian mass extinction: a critical review

• Andy SaundersEmail author
• Marc Reichow

1. 1.

Review/Geology


Abstract
The association between the Siberian Traps, the largest continental flood basalt province, and the largest-known mass extinction event at the end of the Permian period, has been strengthened by recently- published high-precision 40Ar/39Ar dates from widespread localities across the Siberian province[1]. We argue that the impact of the volcanism was amplified by the prevailing late Permian environmental conditions—in particular, the hothouse climate, with sluggish oceanic circulation, that was leading to widespread oceanic anoxia. Volcanism released large masses of sulphate aerosols and carbon dioxide, the former triggering short-duration volcanic winters, the latter leading to long-term warming. Whilst the mass of CO2 released from individual eruptions was small compared with the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere-ocean system, the long ‘mean lifetime’ of atmospheric CO2, compared with the eruption flux and duration, meant that significant accumulation could occur over periods of 105 years. Compromise of the carbon sequestration systems (by curtailment of photosynthesis, destruction of biomass, and warming and acidification of the oceans) probably led to rapid atmospheric CO2 build-up, warming, and shallow-water anoxia, leading ultimately to mass extinction.

Many, many more articles concerning the rapid and extreme thermal pulse at the end of the Permian.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's evolution. Nature will prevail. Panicking about it is temporary and useless.

If we're causing the event to occur then we can stop it. Doing nothing is suicidal.

I learned long ago that 95% of the conservatives here think science is the same as guessing and holy books are concrete fact that can never be refuted no mater what evidence there is. These types of threads, though important for people that actually are looking for factual information, are, for cons, just another brainless exercise where they can flail about how everything's ok, and all the PH.D's on Earth are wrong and they're right, and how Stephen Hawking is an idiot...you can go on forever.

They NEED reassurance more than knowledge. Their minds are hardwired to fear so they reach for ANY explanation that isn't scary and cling to it like a rat on a log out in the middle of the ocean. Its easy to feel sorry for them yes, but their over the top fear of reality is doing great harm to the other humans on Earth.

Here though, best to pat them on the head and give them a cookie and send them on their way. They don't understand science and reject facts outright.

I learned long ago that progressives, such as yourself, traded in intellectual curiosity for religious belief a long, long time ago. A scientist never stops asking questions. A religious nutjob never questions the "consensus". A thinking person, reads every bit of evidence they can to arrive at a reasoned, scientific conclusion, not a consensus. A progressive, on the other hand, never questions what their authoritarian masters tell them. Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is just to do...or else.

I'm an agnostic, 99.9% sure there is no god, but 100% surety about anything is only offered up by the religious types. "A scientist never stops asking questions". Yeah, they're still studying gravity but how many scientists do you think don't accept gravity as fact?

Sorry man, you muddy up the whole thing by "well no one knows for sure 100% so therefore we don't know anything". Yes we do know, the PH.D's of the world have known and accepted the reality of global warming caused by humans dumping billions of excess tons of carbon into the atmosphere which has accumulated over the last 250 years until now the biosphere cannot absorb anymore.

There isn't any debate, there is no "well we just don't know 100% blah blah blah". We know enough, the science is settled and there is no longer debate among scientists. The only derps who claim there is a 'debate' are people either profiting from the fossil fuel industry, paid shills for them, or the uneducated who have been duped by one of the previous groups.

Sorry, conservatism and 'intellectual curiosity' are as far apart as either side of the universe. Conservatives generally gravitate to a magic flying grandpa in the sky who rubs his magic lamp and a talking snake appears.

No, they accept the AGW "theory" because they get money to do so. Remove the cash cow and suddenly they can once again think for themselves and they reverse their story.

Well now, as we have the orange clown defunding the science here in the US, we shall see how many scientists change their stories. My guess is that the number will be zero. Only a few scientists, like Singer and Lindzen, are for sale. Totally bought by tobacco and energy corporations.

 

[westwall]

The Siberian Traps and the End-Permian mass extinction: a critical review

• 
  
  
  • Andy SaundersEmail author
  • Marc Reichow

1. 
   
   
   • 1.

Review/Geology


Abstract
The association between the Siberian Traps, the largest continental flood basalt province, and the largest-known mass extinction event at the end of the Permian period, has been strengthened by recently- published high-precision 40Ar/39Ar dates from widespread localities across the Siberian province[1]. We argue that the impact of the volcanism was amplified by the prevailing late Permian environmental conditions—in particular, the hothouse climate, with sluggish oceanic circulation, that was leading to widespread oceanic anoxia. Volcanism released large masses of sulphate aerosols and carbon dioxide, the former triggering short-duration volcanic winters, the latter leading to long-term warming. Whilst the mass of CO2 released from individual eruptions was small compared with the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere-ocean system, the long ‘mean lifetime’ of atmospheric CO2, compared with the eruption flux and duration, meant that significant accumulation could occur over periods of 105 years. Compromise of the carbon sequestration systems (by curtailment of photosynthesis, destruction of biomass, and warming and acidification of the oceans) probably led to rapid atmospheric CO2 build-up, warming, and shallow-water anoxia, leading ultimately to mass extinction.

Many, many more articles concerning the rapid and extreme thermal pulse at the end of the Permian.

None of which has empirical evidence to support. On the other hand we actually have glacial striations all over the place showing there was a global ice age. So, computer derived fiction, vs glacial striations. I know which evidence I will be paying attention to. And it ain't the fiction.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again the liar, Mr. Westwall ignores science.

Zinc isotope evidence for intensive magmatism immediately before the end-Permian mass extinction

1. Sheng-Ao Liu1,*,
2. Huaichun Wu2,*,
3. Shu-zhong Shen3,
4. Ganqing Jiang4,
5. Shihong Zhang2,
6. Yiwen Lv1,
7. Hua Zhang3 and
8. Shuguang Li1

Abstract
The end-Permian extinction is typically ascribed to massive volcanic eruptions, but direct geochemical evidence linking the two independent events is generally lacking. Zinc is an important micronutrient of marine phytoplanktons, and Zn isotope (δ66Zn) ratios of seawater are markedly higher than those of volcanic rocks and riverine waters. We conducted high-resolution Zn concentration and Zn isotope analyses on carbonate rocks across the Permian-Triassic boundary (PTB) in the Meishan section of south China. An abrupt increase of Zn concentration and a concomitant 0.5‰ decrease in δ66Zn occur ∼35 k.y. before the mass extinction and carbon isotope (δ13C) minima. Mass balance calculation demonstrates that a 0.5‰ negative shift in δ66Zn within thousands of years requires rapid and massive input of isotopically light Zn from volcanic ashes, hydrothermal inputs, and/or extremely fast weathering of large igneous provinces. A positive δ66Zn shift of as much as 1.0‰ following the mass extinction demonstrates that primary productivity recovered and reached a maximum in fewer than 360 k.y. Our finding provides insights into the marine Zn cycling across the PTB and clarifies the temporal relationship and duration of events, including intensive volcanism, carbon isotope excursion, mass extinction, and widespread ocean anoxia.

The carbon isotope excusion is definitive evidence for an extreme temperature event at the end of the Permian. Furthermore, no glacial event has even approached the P-T extinction event in destroying life on land and in the oceans.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, Mr. Phd Geologist, why is an old millwright linking to scientific journals, while all you do is flap yap? I would expect a Phd to understand that you have to give sources.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, we humans had the chance to ascend and rule the stars. But we're too stupid and greedy. Our archaic, 200,000 year old brains are not fit to deal with the consequences of modern technology. What's the rational thing to do in response to thousands of scienctific studies proving global warming will end us? Cut all fossil fuels, yesterday. But no, we're too easily ruled by emotions. I just don't see us making it past this century anymore. . Nope, we're fucked. If it isn't nuclear war with Russia or China in the next few years, it's gonna be runaway global warming in the long term. I guess the only hope for intelligent life is the creation of AI, even if it wipes us out. It would just be finishing what we've already started and what we probably deserve.

 

[Correll]

Well, we humans had the chance to ascend and rule the stars. But we're too stupid and greedy. Our archaic, 200,000 year old brains are not fit to deal with the consequences of modern technology. What's the rational thing to do in response to thousands of scienctific studies proving global warming will end us? Cut all fossil fuels, yesterday. But no, we're too easily ruled by emotions. I just don't see us making it past this century anymore. . Nope, we're fucked. If it isn't nuclear war with Russia or China in the next few years, it's gonna be runaway global warming in the long term. I guess the only hope for intelligent life is the creation of AI, even if it wipes us out. It would just be finishing what we've already started and what we probably deserve.

Cutting all fossil fuels would collapse civilization. That is not a rational policy position.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, yes, if done overnight. Over two decades, completely doable.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What’s Scarier than the Permian Extinction?

Liberal ignorance of economics.

If we burn all the fossil fuels we won't have an economy to worry about.

Even water can kill you, if you drink 100 gallons in one day idiot.


.

 

[Old Rocks]

So now you are admitting that increasing the GHGs by a very significant amount is dangerous? Is so, progress in being made.

 

[skookerasbil]

New Study: What’s Scarier than the Permian Extinction? Burn All the Fossil Fuels to Find Out.

If we burn all the fossil fuels “not only will the resultant climate change be faster than anything Earth has seen for millions of years, the climate that will exist is likely to have no natural counterpart, as far as we can tell, in at least the last 420 million years.” — Gavin Foster, Professor of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Southampton

*****
Back in the 1780s as coal-fired smoke stacks sprouted across England to belch their black soot into the hitherto virgin skies of Earth, it’s likely we had not an inkling of the destruction they were ultimately capable of unleashing:

Svante Arrhenius, by the late 19th Century, had hinted that coal burning might warm the Earth by a tiny bit in a few thousand years. But the very fossils we were digging up and burning at an ever-more-rapid pace warned of a different and far more ominous story (see video above). They hinted of a time when massive volumes of ancient carbon stored in the Earth were released into the atmosphere over the course of thousands of years. And that this release created such hot and toxic conditions that, for most living things, the Earth was no longer habitable.

Unsafe Warming

The Permian-Triassic Extinction of 252 million years ago was the worst hothouse catastrophe that has ever occurred in all of the geological record. It wiped out 96 percent of marine species and more than 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrates. It was the worst of many such hothouse events sparked by rising levels of greenhouse gasses that now serve as a clear warning in the fossil record of the dangers we invite.

https://robertscribb...ls-to-find-out/

Conservatives are suicidal.

Just as a human you would think they would at least be concerned with their own offspring. But they aren't. Even THAT is super-ceded by their all mighty and only god, their political party.

During the Permian Extinction the oceans flipped from supporting aerobic organisms to anaerobic organisms. It flipped form oxygen rich to oxygen poor. And it took 5 million years for it to flip back. Life on land took 20 million years to recover.

All these expanses in time translate to forever for the human race.

But the children in the Republican party are like ignorant passengers on the Titanic who don't know yet that the ship is sinking so they go on gleefully sipping tea and marveling at the icebergs. Noam Chomsky called the Republican party "the most dangerous institution in human history".

It is.

It's evolution. Nature will prevail. Panicking about it is temporary and useless.

If we're causing the event to occur then we can stop it. Doing nothing is suicidal.

I learned long ago that 95% of the conservatives here think science is the same as guessing and holy books are concrete fact that can never be refuted no mater what evidence there is. These types of threads, though important for people that actually are looking for factual information, are, for cons, just another brainless exercise where they can flail about how everything's ok, and all the PH.D's on Earth are wrong and they're right, and how Stephen Hawking is an idiot...you can go on forever.

They NEED reassurance more than knowledge. Their minds are hardwired to fear so they reach for ANY explanation that isn't scary and cling to it like a rat on a log out in the middle of the ocean. Its easy to feel sorry for them yes, but their over the top fear of reality is doing great harm to the other humans on Earth.

Here though, best to pat them on the head and give them a cookie and send them on their way. They don't understand science and reject facts outright.

lol.........we've all been hearing this campaign for about 10 years now and one will notice, always presented in an arrogant and pompous attitude. But here the thing.........how come your side is losing? Losing emphatically I might add! Its because the people have determined that "climate science" is makey-uppey science. Last I checked about 2 weeks ago, Trump was ripping the EPA a new one, especially with respect to future research funding dependent upon skeptic science being represented.

But you go right on taking bows..........we skeptics would rather be a bit short on knowledge but long on winning!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Just as a human you would think they would at least be concerned with their own offspring. But they aren't. Even THAT is super-ceded by their all mighty and only god, their political party.

During the Permian Extinction the oceans flipped from supporting aerobic organisms to anaerobic organisms. It flipped form oxygen rich to oxygen poor. And it took 5 million years for it to flip back. Life on land took 20 million years to recover.

All these expanses in time translate to forever for the human race.

But the children in the Republican party are like ignorant passengers on the Titanic who don't know yet that the ship is sinking so they go on gleefully sipping tea and marveling at the icebergs. Noam Chomsky called the Republican party "the most dangerous institution in human history".

It is.

It's evolution. Nature will prevail. Panicking about it is temporary and useless.

If we're causing the event to occur then we can stop it. Doing nothing is suicidal.

I learned long ago that 95% of the conservatives here think science is the same as guessing and holy books are concrete fact that can never be refuted no mater what evidence there is. These types of threads, though important for people that actually are looking for factual information, are, for cons, just another brainless exercise where they can flail about how everything's ok, and all the PH.D's on Earth are wrong and they're right, and how Stephen Hawking is an idiot...you can go on forever.

They NEED reassurance more than knowledge. Their minds are hardwired to fear so they reach for ANY explanation that isn't scary and cling to it like a rat on a log out in the middle of the ocean. Its easy to feel sorry for them yes, but their over the top fear of reality is doing great harm to the other humans on Earth.

Here though, best to pat them on the head and give them a cookie and send them on their way. They don't understand science and reject facts outright.

I learned long ago that progressives, such as yourself, traded in intellectual curiosity for religious belief a long, long time ago. A scientist never stops asking questions. A religious nutjob never questions the "consensus". A thinking person, reads every bit of evidence they can to arrive at a reasoned, scientific conclusion, not a consensus. A progressive, on the other hand, never questions what their authoritarian masters tell them. Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is just to do...or else.

I'm an agnostic, 99.9% sure there is no god, but 100% surety about anything is only offered up by the religious types. "A scientist never stops asking questions". Yeah, they're still studying gravity but how many scientists do you think don't accept gravity as fact?

Sorry man, you muddy up the whole thing by "well no one knows for sure 100% so therefore we don't know anything". Yes we do know, the PH.D's of the world have known and accepted the reality of global warming caused by humans dumping billions of excess tons of carbon into the atmosphere which has accumulated over the last 250 years until now the biosphere cannot absorb anymore.

There isn't any debate, there is no "well we just don't know 100% blah blah blah". We know enough, the science is settled and there is no longer debate among scientists. The only derps who claim there is a 'debate' are people either profiting from the fossil fuel industry, paid shills for them, or the uneducated who have been duped by one of the previous groups.

Sorry, conservatism and 'intellectual curiosity' are as far apart as either side of the universe. Conservatives generally gravitate to a magic flying grandpa in the sky who rubs his magic lamp and a talking snake appears.

Hmmm.......speaking about "curiosity"? Then why does every single progressive argument fall apart when they have to answer, "As compared to what?" or "At what cost?". Myself, I always prefer to be riding around like a magic grandpa in the sky compared to being a tumbling log into the shitter at every turn.. Munch.....munch.........

 

[ScienceRocks]

Humans on the verge of causing Earth’s fastest climate change in 50m years
Posted on 17 April 2017 by dana1981

A new study published in Nature Communications looks at changes in solar activity and carbon dioxide levels over the past 420 million years. The authors found that on our current path, by mid-century humans will be causing the fastest climate change in approximately 50 million years, and if we burn all available fossil fuels, we’ll cause the fastest change in the entire 420 million year record.

Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and in the combined solar and carbon dioxide forcing over the past 420 million years. Illustration: Foster et al. (2017); Nature Communications.

The study relates to a scientific conundrum known as the “faint young sun paradox” – that early in Earth’s history, solar output was 70% less intense than it is today, and yet the planet was warm enough to have a liquid ocean. A stronger greenhouse effect due to higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere may be one explanation.

Over time, solar output has grown stronger, and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have fallen due to an effect known as “weathering” of rocks and an increase in plant life. The authors of this study found that over the past 420 million years, the slow heating of the sun and slow decline of the greenhouse effect have roughly offset each other, leading to a fairly stable long-term global climate.

Changes in the solar and carbon dioxide forcings over the past 420 million years. Illustration: Foster et al. (2017); Nature Communications.

In particular, as shown in the first chart above, Earth’s climate has been fairly stable over the past several million years. The wiggles in the blue line represent transitions in and out of ice ages, due to wobbles in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, amplified by changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (these are known as Milankovich cycles).

In every case the line is already quite steep due to the hundreds of billions of tons of carbon pollution humans have dumped into the atmosphere thus far. The size of the global energy imbalance we’ve caused is already on par with those previous blue wiggles – Earth’s ice age transitions. If we keep burning lots of fossil fuels, we could soon cause higher carbon dioxide levels and faster climate change than the Earth has seen in 50 million years. If we burn all available fossil fuel reserves (the black “Wink12k” line), we’ll see faster climate change than in the entire 420 million year record.

It’s an alarming proposition. Climate deniers will often argue against taking action to curb carbon pollution because climate changed naturally in the past and carbon dioxide levels were higher in the past. One Republican congressman repeated these talking points in the latest House “Science” committee hearing. While both arguments are technically true, they miss several important points.

 

[SSDD]

Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Somethings happening, eh?

Something very small is happening. You guys take a very short look at a very short period of time and start waving your hands in a panic. Have you ever looked at the long view? If you have, I can guarantee you that you didn't get it from climate science...when you look at the long view, it becomes obvious that those hysterical hand wavers in a panic over the present really are just shouting that the sky is falling.

Here, have a look at two "GOLD STANDARD" temperature reconstructions derived from ice cores taken above the Arctic and Antarctic circles...they provide the highest resolution of past temperature changes available to us...both in the amount of change and the rate of change... The first is from an ice core taken above the Arctic Circle, the second is from an ice core taken above the Antarctic Circle.

They both cover the period of the past 10,000 years. Look at the temperature ranges of the past 10,000 years, both in the Arctic, and Antarctic...the same temperature signatures are visible indicating that the changes were global in nature. Look at the amount of change and the time involved...much more change, than anything we have seen and in almost all cases, more quickly than anything we have seen.

So again, look at your graph and then compare it to the long view and tell me how worried any of us should be? How do you think the Arctic and Antarctic ice of today compares with most of the past 10,000 years?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. How much must we lower CO2 levels from the current 409PPM in order to end Global Warming as we know it?

A. $15 Trillion

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Humans on the verge of causing Earth’s fastest climate change in 50m years
Posted on 17 April 2017 by dana1981

A new study published in Nature Communications looks at changes in solar activity and carbon dioxide levels over the past 420 million years. The authors found that on our current path, by mid-century humans will be causing the fastest climate change in approximately 50 million years, and if we burn all available fossil fuels, we’ll cause the fastest change in the entire 420 million year record.

Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and in the combined solar and carbon dioxide forcing over the past 420 million years. Illustration: Foster et al. (2017); Nature Communications.

The study relates to a scientific conundrum known as the “faint young sun paradox” – that early in Earth’s history, solar output was 70% less intense than it is today, and yet the planet was warm enough to have a liquid ocean. A stronger greenhouse effect due to higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere may be one explanation.

Over time, solar output has grown stronger, and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have fallen due to an effect known as “weathering” of rocks and an increase in plant life. The authors of this study found that over the past 420 million years, the slow heating of the sun and slow decline of the greenhouse effect have roughly offset each other, leading to a fairly stable long-term global climate.

Changes in the solar and carbon dioxide forcings over the past 420 million years. Illustration: Foster et al. (2017); Nature Communications.

In particular, as shown in the first chart above, Earth’s climate has been fairly stable over the past several million years. The wiggles in the blue line represent transitions in and out of ice ages, due to wobbles in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, amplified by changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (these are known as Milankovich cycles).

In every case the line is already quite steep due to the hundreds of billions of tons of carbon pollution humans have dumped into the atmosphere thus far. The size of the global energy imbalance we’ve caused is already on par with those previous blue wiggles – Earth’s ice age transitions. If we keep burning lots of fossil fuels, we could soon cause higher carbon dioxide levels and faster climate change than the Earth has seen in 50 million years. If we burn all available fossil fuel reserves (the black “Wink12k” line), we’ll see faster climate change than in the entire 420 million year record.

It’s an alarming proposition. Climate deniers will often argue against taking action to curb carbon pollution because climate changed naturally in the past and carbon dioxide levels were higher in the past. One Republican congressman repeated these talking points in the latest House “Science” committee hearing. While both arguments are technically true, they miss several important points.

Matty, you sound like a raving lunatic. You see now why I ask about the CO2 levels on the exoplanets, right

 

[SSDD]

Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year



Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Somethings happening, eh?

Imagine how we'd enjoy advancing glaciers, eh?

How about a scenic cruise through the Northwest Passage, eh? You can do it now.

10 Best Northwest Passage Cruises, Tours & Expeditions 2017-2018

Refer again to the temperature reconstruction from the ice cores taken above the Arctic Circle...how often during the past 10,000 years do you think the Northwest Passage was wide open? Most of the time? What you guys don't seem to get is that if you look at the entire history of the earth, ice at one or both of the poles is the anomaly...not the norm. Expecting that the ice should stay there just for us when for most of earth's history there has been no ice there is just crazy...and supposing that we are causing the loss when for most of earth's history there was no ice there again, is just senseless hysterical handwaving brought on by belief in a fantasy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ Good Ole days, pre-Global Warming