The 6th great extinction is occurring

[Weatherman2020]

The time period where life on earth was the most prolific was when the earth was much warmer.

Embrace Global Warming.

 

[Crick]

And again, the problem is not the absolute temperature, it is the rate of change.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And again, the problem is not the absolute temperature, it is the rate of change.

Like Glacier Bay glacier receding 65 miles in just 80 years during the 1800's?

 

[skookerasbil]

And again, the problem is not the absolute temperature, it is the rate of change.

snooze..........we've been hearing this same exact theme for 15 years now. Where has it gotten the climate change industry?

The answer is.............absolutely nowhere.


duh


IDK? Maybe I'm wrong. To me, taking bows because you are winning huge in the real world is a lot more satisfying than taking bows on an internet ENVIRONMENT forum where only 3 or 4 other people concur with your views!!

Perhaps I'm wrong??!!

 

[Crick]

No perhaps about it.

 

[SSDD]

And again, the problem is not the absolute temperature, it is the rate of change.

And again...you don't have the first piece of actual evidence that suggests that the temperature change we have seen is any different from past changes...and gold standard ice cores suggest that the temperature of the past has changed more rapidly in the past...

 

[Crick]

They do not. The rate of change in the most recent glacial/interglacial peak is ONE TENTH the rate of change over the last century. The rate of ocean acidification during the PT extinction event, in which 90% of marine species (not individuals, SPECIES) perished, was ONE TENTH the current rate.

 

[SSDD]

They do not. The rate of change in the most recent glacial/interglacial peak is ONE TENTH the rate of change over the last century. The rate of ocean acidification during the PT extinction event, in which 90% of marine species (not individuals, SPECIES) perished, was ONE TENTH the current rate.

Sorry crick...you clearly don't know the difference between actual data and bullshit...which proxy record, other than ice cores which don't support your claim do you think gives you resolution of less than 400 or 500 years?

And at the time of the PT extinction...atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1500ppm...if atmospheric CO2 is causing the oceans to acidify as you claim, why is the current rate 90 times the rate at that time...

 

[Crick]

They do not. The rate of change in the most recent glacial/interglacial peak is ONE TENTH the rate of change over the last century. The rate of ocean acidification during the PT extinction event, in which 90% of marine species (not individuals, SPECIES) perished, was ONE TENTH the current rate.

Sorry crick...you clearly don't know the difference between actual data and bullshit...which proxy record, other than ice cores which don't support your claim do you think gives you resolution of less than 400 or 500 years?

From a post of mine from another thread:

What were the temperature change rates? I haven't the slightest doubt that the rate was slow enough to to allow accurate determination even with the crude resolution. Let's have a look

For it's height and youth, let's take the peak at 125,000 years. It rises approximately 12C in a period of 12-13,000 years. That comes to roughly 0.1C/century. The resolution of these data is more than fine enough to accurately measure that slope. The rate of warming from 1915 to 2015 is 1.08C/century*. More than ten times as fast.[/QUOTE]
***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

* and this includes the cool period from 1941 to 1979.

And at the time of the PT extinction...atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1500ppm...if atmospheric CO2 is causing the oceans to acidify as you claim, why is the current rate 90 times the rate at that time...

Because CO2 took several hundred thousand years to reach that level. And I said ten times the rate, not 90. Dimwit.

 

[ding]

You didn't.

Lol, I still don't. It's not the co2.

The world's climate scientists, all of whom know the subject far better than do you, disagree. But that doesn't bother you, does it.

So they are saying it is occurring because of co2?

 

[Crick]

The IPCC's conclusion for quite a few years has been that human CO2 emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the global warming experienced over the last 150 years. The effect has grown, of course, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. That is what that 97% agree with. Were you unaware of that?

 

[SSDD]

They do not. The rate of change in the most recent glacial/interglacial peak is ONE TENTH the rate of change over the last century. The rate of ocean acidification during the PT extinction event, in which 90% of marine species (not individuals, SPECIES) perished, was ONE TENTH the current rate.

Sorry crick...you clearly don't know the difference between actual data and bullshit...which proxy record, other than ice cores which don't support your claim do you think gives you resolution of less than 400 or 500 years?

From a post of mine from another thread:

What were the temperature change rates? I haven't the slightest doubt that the rate was slow enough to to allow accurate determination even with the crude resolution. Let's have a look

For it's height and youth, let's take the peak at 125,000 years. It rises approximately 12C in a period of 12-13,000 years. That comes to roughly 0.1C/century. The resolution of these data is more than fine enough to accurately measure that slope. The rate of warming from 1915 to 2015 is 1.08C/century*. More than ten times as fast.

***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

* and this includes the cool period from 1941 to 1979.

And at the time of the PT extinction...atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1500ppm...if atmospheric CO2 is causing the oceans to acidify as you claim, why is the current rate 90 times the rate at that time...

Because CO2 took several hundred thousand years to reach that level. And I said ten times the rate, not 90. Dimwit.[/QUOTE]

You are working with an average there...very few data points between the lows and the highs...you have no idea what the actual rate of change was over those 13,000 years. Perhaps some of that time was in the 0.1 per century range...but ice cores show us that there are periods of rapid climb during those 13,000 year spans...

Look at the graph below...if you had a data point at 10K years ago and a point at the present, you might say that the rate of change between then and now was 0/025 degrees per century...of course, you would be right in a a narrow definition of the claim, but completely wrong in reality.....and you would be completely missing the big picture..which is that temperatures climbed during most of that period and at times climbed at a rate of more than 2 degrees per century.

The fact is crick, that you are just clueless when it comes to graphs...you don't know what they mean...and therefore you can't even begin to grasp what they leave out...if you had the sort of resolution in your 450,000 year graph as is represented in the 10,000 year graph below, do you think that it would look appreciably different from the graph below?

And again.. you have nothing upon which to base your claims of the rate of CO2 increase...again...a couple of data points over 10,000 years don't give you enough information to make any substantiable claim.

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid. Or dishonest. Or both.

The graph I used (not the graph you provide as it doesn't even cover 13,000 years, comes from Greenland, not Antarctica and doesn't even make it back to the last glacial period which we're discussing), displayed many smaller spikes. On other, 13,000 year spans, those data contain dozens of spikes. So the claim that the relatively smooth rise during that period could have been filled with large, unseen spikes just doesn't fly. And, again, those data were sampled CONTINUOUSLY. The denier strategy of claiming that anything could happen did, is just as bullshit as it's always been.

The current rate of temperature rise is ten times that produced by any glacial/interglacial rise in the past several million years. The current rate of ocean acidification is at least ten times that which took place in the PT Extinction Event.

 

[SSDD]

God are you stupid. Or dishonest. Or both.

The graph I used (not the graph you provide as it doesn't even cover 13,000 years, comes from Greenland, not Antarctica and doesn't even make it back to the last glacial period which we're discussing), displayed many smaller spikes. On other, 13,000 year spans, those data contain dozens of spikes.

I am not sure how you think that because the record doesn't go back 13,000 years, the periods of rapid temperature change didn't happen...

And here is an ice core taken from the antarctic...also showing 10,000 years...and also showing periods of rapid temperature change over a short period of time... Several periods where temperatures climbed more than 2 degrees in less than 100 years...so again...your claim that the temperature increase we have seen is unprecedented is bullshit.

So the claim that the relatively smooth rise during that period could have been filled with large, unseen spikes just doesn't fly.

Right there in that antarctic ice core is the evidence that your claim is bullshit...large spikes...sometimes more than 2 degrees in a 100 year period.

The current rate of temperature rise is ten times that produced by any glacial/interglacial rise in the past several million years. The current rate of ocean acidification is at least ten times that which took place in the PT Extinction Event.

Sorry, but the graph above proves you dead wrong...again. Your claims are alarmist claptrap bullshit...nothing more.

 

[Crick]

Your data are not that of glacial/interglacial transitions.

The beginning of this conversation was with Ding, who claimed that the current warming was simply a glacial/interglacial event. My post showed that the current warming is ten times faster than any interglacial warming in the Pleistocene. Published studies have arrived at the same conclusions. The current warming is NOT a glacial/interglacial transition and Ding would have us believe.

 

[Crick]

From Richard Alley

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climateover the last few decades, but warming has occurred.

 

[ding]

The IPCC's conclusion for quite a few years has been that human CO2 emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the global warming experienced over the last 150 years. The effect has grown, of course, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. That is what that 97% agree with. Were you unaware of that?

I am aware that loss of habitat makes sense and the other does not.

 

[ding]

They do not. The rate of change in the most recent glacial/interglacial peak is ONE TENTH the rate of change over the last century. The rate of ocean acidification during the PT extinction event, in which 90% of marine species (not individuals, SPECIES) perished, was ONE TENTH the current rate.

That comparison cannot be made. There is not enough resolution. And if we go back 1000 years we can see many slopes that were equal to or greater than today. The reality is that we are still. Elle historic interglacial peak temperatures.

 

[Crick]

There is not enough resolution to come within an order of magnitude of the slope over a span of 13,000 years on a dataset gathered by continuous sampling?

Bullshit.

As I pointed out earlier, there are places in that data that show dozens of spikes within the same period. Apparently the authors think they have sufficient resolution.

 

[SSDD]

Your data are not that of glacial/interglacial transitions.

The beginning of this conversation was with Ding, who claimed that the current warming was simply a glacial/interglacial event. My post showed that the current warming is ten times faster than any interglacial warming in the Pleistocene. Published studies have arrived at the same conclusions. The current warming is NOT a glacial/interglacial transition and Ding would have us believe.

Did does it show any time during glaciations?...the fact is, crick that rapid temperature change is nothing unusual...and the graph clearly shows periods of temperature increase far more rapid than ours.

And my graph shows that your claims are crap...