If you'd care to look back at the referenced exchange, you'd clearly find that it was you that was making unsupported assumptions.
I made those calculation based on published data to which I linked and displayed.
The extraction of data from the provided graph.
There are other moments when things change rapidly and they are almost universally accompanied with enormous harm to many species.
I can accurately say that it changed at that average rate over that time span. And, as I have argued and you have never addressed, the episode we are currently involved in will be visible in the geological record for over a million years. And, you have no mechanism that could either produce such unseen periods in the past or that would end the current period quickly enough to make it invisible.
Because that is something that a moron like you thinks a moron like SSDD would say.
You keep ignoring the amount of time it needs to go away. The Earth cooling off is going to take longer than it took to get warm.
You're no longer arguing your original point.
How about you give us some mechanisms for temperature and/or CO2 changes during the Mesozoic that would rival current rates of change? I'm not asking you to show that any thing actually happened. I'm asking you how you think it possibly COULD have happened - without leaving a trace in the geological record.
I'm not asking about the record. I'm asking about a hypothetical mechanism during the Mesozoic that could produce a CO2 and temperature surge analogous to the current surge.
Whether or not it is unprecedented is technically irrelevant but if you want to cast it up against the deniers claiming that the amount of CO2 we've added couldn't possibly affect anything or that a 1 degree change is trivial or that it simply isn't worth the money it will cost to mitigate, feel free. And, unless you can identify a plausible mechanism by which CO2 and temperatures COULD have surged as much as the current situation and then vanished again without a trace, I'm going to have to say that you have thrown no shade at all on my contentions. There are numerous scholarly articles stating that the rate of change now is many, many times higher than anything seen for many millennia. Such as:
science.nasa.gov
science.nasa.gov
I'm not asking about the record. I'm asking about a hypothetical mechanism during the Mesozoic that could produce a CO2 and temperature surge analogous to the current surge.
Whether or not it is unprecedented is technically irrelevant but if you want to cast it up against the deniers claiming that the amount of CO2 we've added couldn't possibly affect anything or that a 1 degree change is trivial or that it simply isn't worth the money it will cost to mitigate, feel free. And, unless you can identify a plausible mechanism by which CO2 and temperatures COULD have surged as much as the current situation and then vanished again without a trace, I'm going to have to say that you have thrown no shade at all on my contentions. There are numerous scholarly articles stating that the rate of change now is many, many times higher than anything seen for many millennia. Such as:
" The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago."
Climate change: atmospheric carbon dioxide
In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100-200 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.www.climate.gov
"While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years."
"Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit * that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives."
Evidence - NASA Science
Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of
* - and which establish the rate of forcing change
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.3
3. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 2
Vostok ice core data; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record
O. Gaffney, W. Steffen, "The Anthropocene Equation." The Anthropocene Review 4, issue 1 (April 2017): 53-61. https://doi.org/abs/10.1177/2053019616688022.
Evidence - NASA Science
Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of
www.usmessageboard.com
No I don't. They are locked together by a very tight correlation. Show me one and I'll show you the other.
I'm the one making the demand. Satisfy it or admit you cannot.
To try to convince people to accept mainstream science rather than the pseudo-science deniers who been yammering about the past for the last 20 years.
In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam
Your rejection of the numerous bodies that reviewed the stolen emails is unjustifiable. You’re refusal to accept the reality that “dendrochronolgy” was never discussed is inexcusable. It wasn’t even implied.
To support this moronic claim, you'd have to show the average rate of change in past centuries was roughly 0.07 degrees Celsius. Can you show that?
If you are talking about pre-industrial revolution it was never CO2 leading temperature. It was always temperature leading CO2.
That is not true. Milankovitch heating was followed by CO2 release from the oceans which was followed by greenhouse warming.
www.nature.com
So how much did "Milankovitch heating" warm the planet? And isn't this really you saying that CO2 was a function of temperature? What you are describing is a death spiral BTW. Why didn't that greenhouse warming release more CO2 that would have produced more warming which would lead to more CO2 release and more warming and so on?That is not true. Milankovitch heating was followed by CO2 release from the oceans which was followed by greenhouse warming.
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation - Nature
A reconstruction of global surface temperature is used to show that deglacial temperature is correlated with and generally lags carbon dioxide concentration, a result that contributes to the explanation of the temperature change that occurred at the end of the most recent ice age.
1) As I suspect you have pointed out to us repeatedly, greenhouse warming vs CO2 level is a logarithmic function
If it is a logarithmic function then it was a logarithmic function during the orbital forcing event too. So if that caused greenhouse warming then the greenhouse warming would cause more CO2 to release and that too would cause more warming and so on and so on.
You are now arguing against CO2 increases today creating warming.
Which is a joke to believe that 1C from a doubling of CO2 would produce 3 times more warming from feedbacks. That would be a death spiral.
