Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Guest

Global warming 55 million years ago shifted ocean currents

Recommended Posts

Guest

breitbart.com

quote:

Jan 04 1:50 PM US/Eastern

Email this story

An extraordinary burst of global warming that occurred around 55 million years ago dramatically reversed Earth's pattern of ocean currents, a finding that strengthens modern-day concern about climate change, a study says.

The big event, the Palaeocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), saw the planet's surface temperature rise by between five and eight degrees C (nine and 16.2 F) in a very short time, unleashing climate shifts that endured tens of thousands of years.

Scientists Flavia Nunes and Richard Norris of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California explored how these warmer temperatures might have affected ocean currents.

They measured carbon-13 isotopes from 14 cores that had been drilled into the deep floor in four different ocean basins, taking samples from sediment layers deposited before, during and after the PETM.

These isotopes are considered to be an indicator of the nutrients deposited by the water at the time. The higher the isotope value, the likelier that the source came from the deep ocean, the prime source for nutrients.

With a painstaking reconstruction, Nunes and Norris found that the world's ocean current system did a U-turn during the PETM -- and then, ultimately, reversed itself.

Before the PETM, deep water upwelled in the southern hemisphere; over about 40,000 years, the source of this upwelling shifted to the northern hemisphere; it took another 100,000 years before recovering completely.

What unleashed the PETM is unclear. Most fingers of blame point to volcanic eruptions that disgorged gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, or coastal reservoirs of methane gas, sealed by icy soil, that were breached by warmer temperatures or receding seas.

The huge temperature rise may have occurred within just few thousand years, but as Nunes and Norris point out, the effects were enduring and the lesson for mankind today is clear.

"Modern CO2 input to the biosphere from fossil fuel sources is approaching that estimated for the PETM, raising concerns about future climate and circulation change," they warn.

"The PETM example shows that anthropogenic (man-made) forcing may have lasting effects not only in global climate but in deep-ocean circulation as well."

The study, which appears on Thursday in the British journal Nature, comes on the heels of research published in November which suggests that global warming is slowing the Atlantic current that gives western Europe its mild climate.

The suspected reason for this is an inrush of freshwater into the northern Atlantic, caused by melting glaciers in Greenland and melting sea ice, and higher flow into the Arctic from Siberian rivers caused by greater rainfall.

The influx brakes the conveyor belt in which warm surface water is taken up to the northeastern Atlantic from the tropics before returning down to the southern hemisphere as cool, deep-sea water.

In 2001, the UN's top scientific authority on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), estimated that there would be a temperature rise of 1.4 to 5.8 C (2.5 to 10.4 F) from 1990-2100.

The increase was predicted according to scenarios of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), ranging from 540 to 970 parts per million (ppm).

That compares with 280ppm for pre-industrial times and around 380ppm today, which is already the highest concentration of CO2 for 650,000 years.

The higher the level, the greater the risk that a vicious circle of global warming could be unleashed, inflicting potentially irreversible damage to Earth's climate system, scientists say.


OK, let's go over this stupidity One thing at a time.

OK, 55 MILLION years ago, global warming caused the ocean currents to reverse.

Lat time I checked there were no SUV's or man made pollution of any sort 55 million years ago.

So, what does the headline tell us?

That the earth does this.

BUT THEN, they say this....

quote:

"Modern CO2 input to the biosphere from fossil fuel sources is approaching that estimated for the PETM, raising concerns about future climate and circulation change," they warn.

"The PETM example shows that anthropogenic (man-made) forcing may have lasting effects not only in global climate but in deep-ocean circulation as well."


SO, a 16 degree F change caused the currents to change, but they somehow think that since the CO2 levels are getting "closer" to what they were then, that we therefore will cause the same thing....

BS, total and UTTER BS.....

we MAY see a 1-5 degree change overall in temp, in F, so to say that it will change the ocean currents is not only stupid, it is IRRESPONSIBLE.

quote:

That compares with 280ppm for pre-industrial times and around 380ppm today, which is already the highest concentration of CO2 for 650,000 years.


So it is the highest it has been in 650,000 years, well SORRY, it was 5 times as high before that and had NO EFFECT on GLOBAL temperature, these guys need to get a grip on reality.

Then we have THIS, little tidbit at the end of the article....

quote:

The higher the level, the greater the risk that a vicious circle of global warming could be unleashed, inflicting potentially irreversible damage to Earth's climate system, scientists say.


IRREVERSIBLE? Excuse me, it seems to have reversed itself in the past very nicely, so again, to say such things is STUPID, and IRRESPONSIBLE.

These guys are fricking IDIOTS!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flavia Nunes and Richard Norris have offered an article worthy of freshman geology students.

I'm completely shocked over this article. I had thought that the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California was a place of high standards. I don't know much about these two but it doesn't say anywhere that they are paleo geologists. They also have woefully neglected many other variables (other than the most often used increased volcanic activity). Sure, volcanic activity may have increased and caused this past phenomena but what caused this increase in volcanic activity? Anyway, before I believe any scientist anymore, I want to know everything about them. As in, do they have an agenda etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Well, if you guys are so competent in the fields concerned by this announcement, why comes that your role in the scientific community is null ? LMAO...

You sound like a person that would have scoffed at the notion that Richard Branson would be a millionare or even a billionare. Hmm, high school drop out, no formal education, nah he'll never make it. So don't count us out yet. Our day will come.

Anyway, I'm not dumb (I'm not saying you are calling me that). Sure, there's about a billion things I don't know but that shouldn't relegate me to back of the room in scientific discussions. Getting a A+ in astrophysics should be proof of that. I just don't like all the politics involved in the scientific fields. I subscribe to the very old days when more than not it was the lay person who made the most significant discoveries not the professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Finally, concerning our opinions, we are entitled to them. However, I also believe that we should be able to determine the domains were our opinion is just that, an opinion of little value if we did'n bother to spend our entire life mastering the subject. That's why you will not see me emitting an opinion in entomology or nanotechnology, or any other field for that matter were I consider having insufficient education.

Most if not all is true. I wouldn't go and hire a person to design and run a nuclear power plant that has only read up on it and understands its physics.

However, when I do read studies, by quote unquote, scientific experts that don't include our entire place in the universe, I draw the line. Most if not all studies I've read on this global warming issue have been Earth centered as if we are a closed system. We are not.

One must take into account, the moons orbit, the orbit of the Earth around the Sun both of which are not static. Maybe even the Suns rotation around the galaxy for all we know. Anyway, there are times when the Earth's orbit takes it closer to the Sun. What happens when that occurs? Take a look at IO for those answers. Increased heat, increased volcanic activity, increased Earth quakes which all in turn will affect the Earth's atmosphere. Hmmm, kind of like what we are seeing today. Until I see a professional study that offers me evidence and measurements to those respects, I will not believe it. To me, everyone is just taking the easy way out and/or basing their answers on scant circumstantial evidence. We know where that leads us to in a court of law. Oh, the Earth is heating up. lets see, humans exhaust greenhouse gases so that must be it. Nope doesn't cut it for me.

Let me give you another example. I had a parotid gland tumor back 1998. Well it had started earlier but I didn't do anything about it until some doctors yelled at me to do something about it. By the time they did it was the size of a walnut. Anyway, when I first went to the ENT clinic (ear, nose and throat) and they took my history quess what the first question they asked. Do you smoke. I told them I never have smoked. Well, they were at a complete loss. This condition mostly occurs in smokers due to the fact that smoke particles can build up in a saliva duct and block it. They could come up with no other answer than what to them should have been obvious: Smoking. They made no attempt to find out what could have caused this condition other than smoking. Do you see where I'm heading with this?

Anyway, now I'm probably just relegated to some off curve anamoly on their smoking and parotid gland study.

BTW: I do smoke now. Started back in 2002. Long story. Let's just say it wasn't a happy event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[qoute]Anyway, there are times when the Earth's orbit takes it closer to the Sun.[/qoute]

The variation of the orbit right? If so, how much closer? Because if it is less than the Earth's distance from the sun at its aphelion minus its perihelion (well, maybe a bit less) then we can conclude that it probably has ,if anything, a negilgable effect. However if the Earth's axis of rotation compared to the sun changes (I think it does), then there should be a notciable effect on the seasons.

If you were talking about the Eliptical nature of Earth's orbit (which I doubt) then from what I understand, the relativly small distance change has pretty much no effect on the temperature of the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

[qoute]Anyway, there are times when the Earth's orbit takes it closer to the Sun.[/qoute]

The variation of the orbit right? If so, how much closer? Because if it is less than the Earth's distance from the sun at its aphelion minus its perihelion (well, maybe a bit less) then we can conclude that it probably has ,if anything, a negilgable effect. However if the Earth's axis of rotation compared to the sun changes (I think it does), then there should be a notciable effect on the seasons.

If you were talking about the Eliptical nature of Earth's orbit (which I doubt) then from what I understand, the relativly small distance change has pretty much no effect on the temperature of the planet.

Ugh, I forgot one more thing. The Sun's energy output is also dynamic. So one has to take that into account also. I'll get back to you on these issues. I'm out for a little bit.

Actually, have a read on this: Global Climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

quote:

Well, if you guys are so competent in the fields concerned by this announcement, why comes that your role in the scientific community is null ? LMAO...


typical nomad right there... talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Blowhard feels the need to present his credentials before entering the fray - even if they are irrelevant to the discussion. For example, in a movie forum conflict he might attempt to settle the matter by saying, "As a Ph. D. candidate in particle physics I believe I can say with some authority that the 'Beavis and Butthead' movie represents the emergence of a new cultural paradigm." Huh?"

ROFL - http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm

That's from the other section in our forum

http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u...c;f=38;t=000270

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Flavia Nunes and Richard Norris have offered an article worthy of freshman geology students.

I'm completely shocked over this article. I had thought that the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California was a place of high standards. I don't know much about these two but it doesn't say anywhere that they are paleo geologists. They also have woefully neglected many other variables (other than the most often used increased volcanic activity). Sure, volcanic activity may have increased and caused this past phenomena but what caused this increase in volcanic activity? Anyway, before I believe any scientist anymore, I want to know everything about them. As in, do they have an agenda etc...

This is why people on this board get to say things like "Well how come the whole scientific community is behind Global Warming" It's because idiots like this, who clearly show ZERO scientific standards pretty much get a free pass as long as they back the 'Official" Global Warming Stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Nowadays all you have to do is say, CO2 is causing the problem, and your grant is in the bag.

CO2 has been historically hundreds of times higher, and had NO effect on the climate, so for these 2 amateurs to pop off with such nonsense is beyond the pale.

BTW, Nomad, I no longer read your posts, because I already know what they are going to say, so why should I bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grayfox

quote:

"Blowhard feels the need to present his credentials before entering the fray - even if they are irrelevant to the discussion.

its called egotism

he who does not think much of himself is much more esteemed than he imagines.

ie: stop being a braggart and showoff, and maybe people would respect you more, because honestly we couldnt care if youre a member of MENSA or a garbageman... the humility is lacking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×