The 6th great extinction is occurring

[SSDD]

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.

It is damned unfortunate that you can't make sense of graphs...or how they are made...maybe that is how you have been duped so badly...you see a graph and simply assume that it means what you have been told to believe it means.

 

[Crick]

I would say that comment applies most accurately to you. Why don't you tell me what error I made in this particular instance? Given the chronological detail present in that dataset, what makes my slope calculation inaccurate?

 

[SSDD]

I would say that comment applies most accurately to you. Why don't you tell me what error I made in this particular instance? Given the chronological detail present in that dataset, what makes my slope calculation inaccurate?

The fact that you have so few data points crick...you have no idea what the rate of change was during any particular 200 year period...that is what's wrong with your calculations...you think that because you know the low temperature and the high temperature and the time between the two you can somehow know what the actual rate of change was during any particular period...you can't...and as you have seen, when the resolution gets finer, the idea of a smooth curve from low to high becomes ludicrous...

Again...here is a 10K year graph of the antarctic...Look at the temperature at 10,000 years back and look at the present temperature...ignoring all those points between, do you think you could give an accurate account of what the most rapid period of temperature change was in that interval?....that is exactly what you are trying to claim you can do with those long term graphs...there aren't enough data points for you to make any claims regarding rate of change...

 

[Crick]

It would have been handy had you actually paid attention to the actual topic under discussion before launching yourself into it. Ding claimed that the rate of warming now was identical to the rate of warming in the glacial/interglacial transitions. I showed that it is not; that the current rate is roughly ten times the prior rate. Peer reviewed studies have made the precise same point. And the contention you and Ding keep making, that I cannot reject the idea that the 'real' temperature record contains huge spikes, that managed to disappear from every glacial transition in the record, is simply unsupportable bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

You didn't.

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

OK, Dingleberry, what is it, then? And don't try to shit me with that line about other interglacials being warmer. The Milankovic Cycles today say we should be very slowly cooling, as we have been for the past 2000 years. But now, we are rapidly warming when the Cycles that created those warmer periods say we should be cooling.

Damn, even for an engineer, you are damned bone headed.

 

[Old Rocks]

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...

Again, you are a damned idiot and liar, since that evidence has been repeatedly posted here. From NASA;

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 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.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Evidence, facts and decades of education mean nothing anymore to these people. How the hell can you argue with such and hope to ever convince them otherwise is of great risk to our civilization....If there's enough of them it could be good bye civilization for us all.

 

[SSDD]

It would have been handy had you actually paid attention to the actual topic under discussion before launching yourself into it. Ding claimed that the rate of warming now was identical to the rate of warming in the glacial/interglacial transitions. I showed that it is not; that the current rate is roughly ten times the prior rate.

The graphs above show that the rate of temperature increase we have seen is in no way unusual...you don't have enough data points from previous warming periods to make any claims as to the rate of warming they experienced....there is no reason to believe that the present is any different from the past.

Peer reviewed studies have made the precise same point. And the contention you and Ding keep making, that I cannot reject the idea that the 'real' temperature record contains huge spikes, that managed to disappear from every glacial transition in the record, is simply unsupportable bullshit.

Pal review has shown itself to be a big failure...and means nothing at this point.

 

[Crick]

I do have enough data points - the instances of slope reversal during other time periods show that clearly.

Your "pal review" comments are worthless bullshit.

 

[SSDD]

I do have enough data points - the instances of slope reversal during other time periods show that clearly.

Your "pal review" comments are worthless bullshit.

Sorry...but you don't...but do tell...how many data points do you have between each maximum and minimum temperature spike?....

 

[westwall]

The 6th great extinction is occurring

The extinction crisis is far worse than you think

If we act like this isn't serious and do nothing we will find our planet dying all around us. Humans need to wake up and treat this as seriously as it should be treated. To act like it isn't your problem is to sentence your children and grand children to a very harsh life.

I hate to break it to you but when you are discovering 18,000 new species in any one particular year, you're not having a mass extinction. The propaganda that you people spew is amusing but totally devoid of reality.


"A panel of taxonomists from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry announced their annual "Top 10 New Species of 2016."
This year's list was extremely eclectic, with the inclusion of an early human, a Galapagos tortoise, a red seadragon and an anglerfish.

The 10 were picked from the "approximately 18,000 new species named during the previous year." The list is compiled in part to raise awareness of the "discoveries that are made even as species are going extinct faster than they are being identified."

 

[westwall]

I do have enough data points - the instances of slope reversal during other time periods show that clearly.

Your "pal review" comments are worthless bullshit.

No, they are factual representations of the level of corruption that your climate mafia has descended to.

 

[Crick]

Prove it. Shall we compare the demonstrable validity of peer reviewed work to that of blogs?

 

[westwall]

Prove it. Shall we compare the demonstrable validity of peer reviewed work to that of blogs?

We have. Repeatedly. Do try and keep up.

 

[mamooth]

I hate to break it to you but when you are discovering 18,000 new species in any one particular year, you're not having a mass extinction. The propaganda that you people spew is amusing but totally devoid of reality.

So according to Westwall, if new species are being discovered ... it means old species can't be going extinct at a high rate.

Yes, that conclusion is in no way related to the premise, but when has that ever stopped Westwall before? In the faith-based reality of the deniers, simply wanting something to be true makes it true.

 

[westwall]

I hate to break it to you but when you are discovering 18,000 new species in any one particular year, you're not having a mass extinction. The propaganda that you people spew is amusing but totally devoid of reality.

So according to Westwall, if new species are being discovered ... it means old species can't be going extinct at a high rate.

Yes, that conclusion is in no way related to the premise, but when has that ever stopped Westwall before? In the faith-based reality of the deniers, simply wanting something to be true makes it true.

Provide evidence that they are. Show me a list, based on empirical evidence, that shows there is a mass extinction going on. A mass extinction is when 50% or more of the available species are disappearing. Let's see your evidence cupcake.

 

[mamooth]

Provide evidence that they are. Show me a list, based on empirical evidence, that shows there is a mass extinction going on. A mass extinction is when 50% or more of the available species are disappearing. Let's see your evidence cupcake.

Nice attempt at deflection. However, I'd rather discuss your logic failure. Why did you believe that the discovery of new species means old species can't be going extinct at a high rate?

However, to answer your question, there's this recent paper. Note that this paper only lists global warming as one of factors involved. Other factors are pollution, land use, hunting and invasive diseases. Thus, it's peculiar that any "environmentalists" would be in such a meltdown over it, even if those "environmentalists" did reject global warming theory, being that those "environmentalists" should at least be concerned about the other factors.

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction | Science Advances
---
Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
Ceballos et al (2016)

Abstract
The oft-repeated claim that Earth’s biota is entering a sixth “mass extinction” depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the “background” rates prevailing between the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 100 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
---

 

[westwall]

Provide evidence that they are. Show me a list, based on empirical evidence, that shows there is a mass extinction going on. A mass extinction is when 50% or more of the available species are disappearing. Let's see your evidence cupcake.

Nice attempt at deflection. However, I'd rather discuss your logic failure. Why did you believe that the discovery of new species means old species can't be going extinct at a high rate?

However, to answer your question, there's this recent paper. Note that this paper only lists global warming as one of factors involved. Other factors are pollution, land use, hunting and invasive diseases. Thus, it's peculiar that any "environmentalists" would be in such a meltdown over it, even if those "environmentalists" did reject global warming theory, being that those "environmentalists" should at least be concerned about the other factors.

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction | Science Advances
---
Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
Ceballos et al (2016)

Abstract
The oft-repeated claim that Earth’s biota is entering a sixth “mass extinction” depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the “background” rates prevailing between the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 100 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
---

Soooooo, you don't understand the difference between estimates and empirical data. Go figure.

 

[Yarddog]

The 6th great extinction is occurring

The extinction crisis is far worse than you think

If we act like this isn't serious and do nothing we will find our planet dying all around us. Humans need to wake up and treat this as seriously as it should be treated. To act like it isn't your problem is to sentence your children and grand children to a very harsh life.

Use of ethanol in our gasoline definately sped up the destruction of the rainforest. I'm all for preserving forests and open spaces for animals. Clear cutting is pretty destructive and throwing plastic into the ocean as well. Trying to turn the interior of the US into a National park? not really necessary. It's too overbearing on the people who actually live there. Maybe Chicago or D.C. should be turned into national parks, then all the crime and corruption would stop.

 

[Crick]

That the current extinction rate is 100 times the background rate is empirical data