Rate of change in the Ordovician extinction

[Old Rocks]

Lowering outgassing does not decrease atmospheric CO2. Try again. It is impossible for there to be a rapid reduction of CO2 that preceded the cooling. There's no mechanism for that other than an ocean that had cooled first. Secondly, what caused the rapid warming? Thermohaline circulation?

And lastly, our present warming rate is not unprecedented. Happens in every interglacial period.

What bullshit you post. No, our present rate does not happen every interglacial. And our present rate of GHG increase is without precedent in geological history. Even in the P-T extinction, the rate did not match the increase we see today. And it is the rate of change that creates the periods of extinction in our geological history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another "Conservative" that cannot do simple math.

Do the math, post it here and prove your point.

Or continue to look like a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What bullshit you post. No, our present rate does not happen every interglacial. And our present rate of GHG increase is without precedent in geological history. Even in the P-T extinction, the rate did not match the increase we see today. And it is the rate of change that creates the periods of extinction in our geological history.

Even in the P-T extinction, the rate did not match the increase we see today.

You have no evidence for this claim.

 

[toobfreak]

As an interested outsider intrigued by how one group of "experts" all come to the OPPOSITE conclusions as the other group, I note a few things I have not seen anyone point out:

1. The Earth had been cooling off anyway since about the middle of the Cambrian Period.
2. During the Ordovician, all life was invertebrate in the sea. Life had not moved onto land yet.
3. There was a peak period of biodiversity during the Ordovician, which culminated in the mass extinction of life which became the Andean-Saharan Ice Age, in effect, the Silurian Period, which set up another warming period afterwards (The Devonian), which finally ushered in the Carboniferous Period, in essence, leading the Earth very much to appear as it still does today.

Still, interesting that faced with the same data, two groups derive two exactly opposite conclusions.

 

[ReinyDays]

As an interested outsider intrigued by how one group of "experts" all come to the OPPOSITE conclusions as the other group, I note a few things I have not seen anyone point out:

1. The Earth had been cooling off anyway since about the middle of the Cambrian Period.
2. During the Ordovician, all life was invertebrate in the sea. Life had not moved onto land yet.
3. There was a peak period of biodiversity during the Ordovician, which culminated in the mass extinction of life which became the Andean-Saharan Ice Age, in effect, the Silurian Period, which set up another warming period afterwards (The Devonian), which finally ushered in the Carboniferous Period, in essence, leading the Earth very much to appear as it still does today.

Still, interesting that faced with the same data, two groups derive two exactly opposite conclusions.

Neither side seems to understand that uranium decay isn't accurate to 0.0166ºC over 400 million years ago ...

Worst ... the OP gives current warming at 0.2ºC per decade when actual temperatures are up only a single degree in the past 145 years ... I guess they don't teach how to read a scientific instrument in Middle School ... "Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal....."

Same data .. but one group lies ...

 

[elektra]

First you have to ascend to third grade level. Won't.

Old dumbsss, trying to be the grammar police. Dumb crock your reply is that of a blithering idiot

 

[toobfreak]

Worst ... the OP gives current warming at 0.2ºC per decade when actual temperatures are up only a single degree in the past 145 years ... I guess they don't teach how to read a scientific instrument in Middle School ... "Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal....."

Well, I doubt any predictions for future warming are really accurate. There is what man thinks, then there is what the Earth really intends to do. Too many people are basing far too much on far too small a sample of measurements.

Same data .. but one group lies ...

Probably more a result of different interpretations of the same data. People tend to insert their own observational bias into how they read data.

 

[ding]

What bullshit you post. No, our present rate does not happen every interglacial. And our present rate of GHG increase is without precedent in geological history. Even in the P-T extinction, the rate did not match the increase we see today. And it is the rate of change that creates the periods of extinction in our geological history.

Sure it does. There's nothing special about today's rate. See?

 

[ding]

Old dumbsss, trying to be the grammar police. Dumb crock your reply is that of a blithering idiot

You melt down faster than anyone I know on these boards. Were you diagnosed with HPD?

 

[Old Rocks]

Do the math, post it here and prove your point.

Or continue to look like a moron.

Do the math, post it here and prove your point.

Or continue to look like a moron.

Warming rate for the period in the opening post was 12.2 C per 100,000 years. That would be 1.22 c for 10,000 years. 0.122 for 1000 years. 0.0122 for 100 years. Simple math. But you could not do it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure it does. There's nothing special about today's rate. See?
View attachment 1120137

LOL Sure nothing special, except it is going right off the chart. And the normal variations are not going to make it go down. And the increased heat will create a rapidly changing and very energetic climate. Such as we are seeing right now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I doubt any predictions for future warming are really accurate. There is what man thinks, then there is what the Earth really intends to do. Too many people are basing far too much on far too small a sample of measurements.


Probably more a result of different interpretations of the same data. People tend to insert their own observational bias into how they read data.

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Get PDF (2.6 MB. Document is scanned, no OCR.)
• PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader or compatible viewing software to be viewed.
• Go to journal webpage

Looks pretty damned accurate to me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Even in the P-T extinction, the rate did not match the increase we see today.

You have no evidence for this claim.

No, I do not. But the scientists that wrote the paper do. But no way you are going to read that paper. You fear anything that might challenge your alternative universe.

 

[elektra]

No, I do not. But the scientists that wrote the paper do. But no way you are going to read that paper. You fear anything that might challenge your alternative universe.

You ain't read one paper old crock. You post an editorial nothing more. An abstract is an editorial opinion

 

[westwall]

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Get PDF (2.6 MB. Document is scanned, no OCR.)
• PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader or compatible viewing software to be viewed.
• Go to journal webpage

Looks pretty damned accurate to me.

No, looks like an epic fail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warming rate for the period in the opening post was 12.2 C per 100,000 years. That would be 1.22 c for 10,000 years. 0.122 for 1000 years. 0.0122 for 100 years. Simple math. But you could not do it?

Our present warming rate is 0.2 C per decade.

Is that a lot? How do you know?
How many decades in the past have warmed at that rate or more?

That would be 1.22 c for 10,000 years. 0.122 for 1000 years. 0.0122 for 100 years.

Wow! Your simplistic math is hilarious.

0.0122 for 100 years.

How many centuries during that period warmed at that rate? All of them?

 

[Old Rocks]

You ain't read one paper old crock. You post an editorial nothing more. An abstract is an editorial opinion

LOL Damn, with every post, you demonstrate that you are a fool. An abstract is a summation of the paper. The main body outlines the methodology and evidence. Obviously you have never bothered to read peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I do not. But the scientists that wrote the paper do. But no way you are going to read that paper. You fear anything that might challenge your alternative universe.

No, I do not. But the scientists that wrote the paper do.

Cool story.
What was the fastest rate per decade in the P-T extinction?
How about the fastest rate per century in the P-T extinction?
The fastest rate per millennium in the P-T extinction?

According to the scientists who wrote that paper, of course.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, looks like an epic fail.

Now Westie, you have repeatedly proven yourself a fool. Dr. James Hansen is one of the most respected atmospheric physicists in the world. And you are what? A science denier, a posier who apparently cannot read real scientists papers.

 

[elektra]

Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be

warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is

a high probability of

Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of

Potentially, should, could, probability of, appears?

That ain't science, that is an opinion