https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-parallel-in-66-million-years-scientists-say/ If you dig deep enough into the Earth’s climate change archives, you hear about the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. And then you get scared. This is a time period, about 56 million years ago, when something mysterious happened — there are many ideas as to what — that suddenly caused concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to spike, far higher than they are right now. The planet proceeded to warm rapidly, at least in geologic terms, and major die-offs of some marine organisms followed due to strong acidification of the oceans. The cause of the PETM has been widely debated. Some think it was an explosion of carbon from thawing Arctic permafrost. Some think there was a huge release of subsea methane that somehow made its way to the atmosphere — and that the series of events might have been kickstarted by major volcanic eruptions. In any case, the result was a hothouse world from pole to pole, some 5 degrees Celsius warmer overall. But now, new research suggests, even the drama of the PETM falls short of our current period, in at least one key respect: We’re putting carbon into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than happened back then. ......... ................
I am not able to open the files you uploaded. But will try to contribute to this discussion without knowing what they say. The arctic regions have huge amounts of methane trapped below the permafrost soil, both under the sea and on land. As glaciers melt, permafrost soils defrost, and ice cover over water melts, large amount of trapped methane is released into the air. The result is, the additional methane becomes a major contributor to global warming which increases the rate of defrosting and melting, releasing yet more methane. There can be other factors that increase the rate of releasing methane that is trapped below the permafrost. Another major one is the warming of ocean waters. This is due to complex changes in weather patterns that are beyond my ability to easily explain. The methane releases has been an ongoing cycle. The chart below shows the history of the cycles. I believe the results where found by analyzing soil samples. These samples were taken with a special drilling machine that can bring up core samples from very deep. Millions of years ago The Permian–Triassic extinction event (the Great Dying) may have been caused by release of methane from clathrates. An estimated 52% of marine genus went extinct, representing 96% of all marine species.
Probably would go along way, reduce the human carbon footprint by about a third. Isn't that the goal? Then if no one is feeding the camels. Viola! some more reduction.
Further, I have a question for you. What is the new research that suggests that carbon is entering the atmosphere at a faster rate then happened 66 million years ago? Will you send me a private message with links to the research so I can study it? I can not open the links in your post. I am always open to learning from new research. This is my understanding. We now have very accurate ways to measure the amounts of carbon and methane in the air. From this history of accurate stats, we can show yearly rates of increase or decrease. But that accuracy is only available since the development of the equipment to monitor the air. This equipment and accurate history is less than 100 years old. When soil samples that are millions of years old are analyzed, there is a large spread in estimating the dates. It is not like counting tree rings to determine how many years ago some event was recorded within the tree. 500 years maybe the closest present analyses can guess which is fairly close when you are talking about 66 million or 250 million years ago. Most studies use 100,000 years as a realistic range to work with when guessing a year of an event that was tens or hundreds of millions years ago. I do not dispute that the earth is warming. The global warming cycle we are now in started slowly about 20,000 years ago. New York City used to be under a mile thick sheet of ice. Also, as more ice melts, the studies show the rate of global warming increases resulting in the increase of methane and carbon into the air, which is where we are right now in the cycle. My question is, how does the new research know global warming is happening faster or slower than in then millions of years ago?
Sly, Denny, Oldfisherman, I just tried to start a conversation privately with Oldfisherman so I imbed the entire article which he is having trouble opening. I got this alert: You may not start a conversation with the following recipients: oldfisherman. What the heck is going on?
That may have been my fault. I just check my message preferences, and everything was off. Would you be kind enough to try again, I turned everything back on. Thank you for your patience. Looking forward to reading the article.
Still not working. But, I'm posting everything here. Everyone, we aren't supposed to post full articles, we should make every attempt to drive traffic to the site that made the content. Since that isn't working here, I'll make the full post, but please follow the link if you are able to. Washington Post What we’re doing to the Earth has no parallel in 66 million years, scientists say Resize Text Comments 1214 Chris Mooney March 21 something mysterious happened — there are many ideas as to what — that suddenly caused concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to spike, far higher than they are right now. The planet proceeded to warm rapidly, at least in geologic terms, and major die-offs of some marine organisms followed due to strong acidification of the oceans. The cause of the PETM has been widely debated. Some think it was an explosion of carbon from thawing Arctic permafrost. Some think there was a huge release of subsea methane that somehow made its way to the atmosphere — and that the series of events might have been kickstarted by major volcanic eruptions. [We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet’s future] In any case, the result was a hothouse world from pole to pole, some 5 degrees Celsius warmer overall. But now, new research suggests, even the drama of the PETM falls short of our current period, in at least one key respect: We’re putting carbon into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than happened back then. How greenhouse gas behaves in the atmosphere Play Video0:43 This high-resolution animation shows carbon dioxide emitted from fires and megacities over a five day period in June 2006. The model is based on real emission data so that scientists can observe how the greenhouse gas behaves once it has been emitted. (Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center) Such is the result of a new study in Nature Geoscience, led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and colleagues from the University of Bristol in the UK and the University of California-Riverside. “If you look over the entire Cenozoic, the last 66 million years, the only event that we know of at the moment, that has a massive carbon release, and happens over a relatively short period of time, is the PETM,” says Zeebe. “We actually have to go back to relatively old periods, because in the more recent past, we don’t see anything comparable to what humans are currently doing.” That’s why this time period is so crucial to study — as a possible window on our own. There’s no doubt that a lot of carbon — about as much as contained the fossil fuel reserves that humans have either already burned, or could still burn, combined — made its way into the atmosphere during the PETM. The result was a major warming event that lasted over 100,000 years. But precisely how rapidly the emissions occurred is another matter. Humans’ staggering effect on Earth View Photos Images of consumption are the theme of the book, “Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot.” It addresses environmental deterioration through subjects including materialism, consumption, pollution, fossil fuels and carbon footprints. “If anthropogenic emissions rates have no analogue in Earth’s recent history, then unforeseeable future responses of the climate system are possible,” the authors write. To examine what happened in the PETM, the researchers used a deep ocean core of sediment from off the coast of New Jersey. The goal was to determine the ratios between different isotopes, or slightly different elemental forms, of carbon and oxygen, in the sediments during the PETM. CONTENT FROM JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.Managing your own path: Six tips for women re-entering the workforce Experienced employee offers her perspective on how to smoothly return to work after having a family. The relationship between the two lets researchers determine how atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as reflected in the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13, in turn influenced temperatures (which can be inferred based on oxygen isotopes in the ocean). “In terms of these two systems, the first shows us when the carbon went into the system, and the second tells us when the climate responded,” says Zeebe. It turns out that there is a lag time between massive pulses of carbon in the atmosphere and subsequent warming, because the oceans have a large thermal inertia. Therefore, a large lag would indicate a greater carbon release, whereas the lack of one actually means that carbon dioxide came out more slowly. The geologic evidence from the new core did not show a lag, the new study reports. That means, the authors estimate, that while a gigantic volume of carbon entered the atmosphere during the PETM — between 2,000 and 4,500 billion tons — it played out over some 4,000 years. So only about 1 billion tons of carbon were emitted per year. In contrast, humans are now emitting about 10 billion tons annually — changing the planet much more rapidly. “The anthropogenic release outpaces carbon release during the most extreme global warming event of the past 66 million years, by at least an order of magnitude,” writes Peter Stassen, an Earth and environmental scientist at KU Leuven, in Belgium, in an accompanying commentary on the new study. The analogy between the PETM and the present, then, is less than perfect — and our own era may be worse in key ways. “The two main conclusions is that ocean acidification will be more severe, ecosystems may be hit harder because of the rate” of carbon release, says Zeebe. And not only have we only begun to see the changes that will result from current warming, but there may be other changes that lack any ancient parallel, because of the current rate of change. “Given that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented throughout the Cenozoic, we have effectively entered an era of a no-analogue state, which represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections,” the study concludes. Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-parallel-in-66-million-years-scientists-say/
Further, thank you for the article, however, I doubt you are going to like what I have to say about it. There is no new science in this article, none. The information in the article is only a new interpretation of old science using very questionable numbers. Which begs the question, is there an agenda here? Method, follow the money. This article uses numbers generate by a “limited study” conducted by Nature Geoscience. The question becomes, who funded the Nature Geoscience study? A. The Packard foundation, The Packard foundation has funded many so called “limited studies” that result in environmental articles. The Packard foundation has a very clear agenda, which is to stop as much ocean fishing as they can. Studies funded by the Packard foundation have generated tons of misleading propaganda, going back over 20 years. The Packard foundation funds more anti-use agendas than any other foundation or group in the world. I never trust any article based on information that was funded by the Packard foundation.
Perhaps, I haven't looked into this exact article and the corresponding science, but I think overall the basics can be seen very simply. Thousands of journal articles about the changing climate and peoples hand in it, to every couple dozen con. The pro are sometimes sponsored by addenda-driven groups, the con are always. But mainly, simple things like the ever more aggressive weather and record setting temps proves it to me. I've been very busy lately and haven't kept up, but I haven't heard anything to sway me at all. Perhaps I'm wrong. Then again, perhaps 98 out of 100 climatologists are wrong.
Further, I do not dispute that changes are happening to our climate, and agree global warming is real. What I have a problem with is miss-information campaigns, such as this article. Real honest studies report complete results, balanced reporting. Anytime you see a report that is all one sided, you can bet it is a propaganda piece. This article was not only one sided, it stretched the boundaries of known science to the breaking point. This article had Packard foundation written all over it. That is why it only took me a couple of minutes to find out who funded the agenda driven study. Packard is always the first place I look to verify funding of environmental articles. And they fund a ton of them. FYI. The Packard foundation is worth about $6 Billion+. They can not spend that money, but they do spend the proceeds from investments on those billions. They spend $100s of millions each year by giving grants. To be fair, there are several divisions within the Packard foundation, each run by one of the Packard kids. Some of the divisions do very good things with their money. However, the division run by July Packard is the environmental section. She is a tree hugging nut case. Her dad (a very good man) would roll of in his grave if he knew what she was doing. She spends many millions of $$$ each year giving grants to anti groups. Most of the articles on environmental issues from the anti groups can be traced back to funding from July P. I do not blame you for posting a miss-information piece, you had good intentions. I am trying to inform you and everyone else how much miss-information is out there concerning environmental issues. And it is a ton.
