The recent Greenland sheet ice melt is a harbinger, of Mass Extinction Event 6:

bobgnote · Jul 31, 2012

Most of the Greenland ice sheet just melted. This hasn't happened, since 1889. No big whoop?

The Greenland ice sheet melt previous, to the 1889 melt apparently happened, in the Medieval Warm Period, so a lot of writers are claiming no trend is evident, except toward a modern warm period, which means such melts will be a lot more common, than every thousand or hundred years, but more like every couple of years, then every year, since we are at a tipping point, toward that sort of phenomenon.

Here's a skeptic site, which did notice, how Erik the Red experienced such a melt, but this site noted certain oysters are no longer living, in such northern climes, without noting how this is because CO2 IS ACIDIFYING THE OCEANS, particularly toward the poles:

http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html

Between the 9th and 14th century there was a "Medieval Warm Period", when the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere reached its highest point in the past 4,000 years, which was only about 1°C higher than at present. It has been documented that during this period, American oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and bay scallops (Aequipecten irradiens) formed populations as far north as Sable Island. Neither of these species exists there today. Radiocarbon dating of relict oyster and bay scallop shells compare reasonably well with the dates of the post-glacial warm period.
Click to expand...

--------------

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25257

These guys inaccurately reported that the melt happens "every 150 years." They missed a lot. So these other guys are starting to go over all of this:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ted-absolutely-is-it-worrisome-you-bet-it-is/

--------------

What happened is the reporters of this event are now trying to figure out, how often it really has happened, in the past, but nobody reported on what happened, during the PETM extinction or the P-T extinction, which is where we are headed, from much faster GHG emissions and out-gassing, than either of these warming-related extinctions.

The oceans acidify, to badly injure the food chain, then they heat up, sea levels rise, anoxic events kill other life forms, and on the way, jellyfish take over. NS2 respirators evolve. Failure of species and families will be epic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/Kiehl-Shields.pdf

----------------------

http://climatesight.org/2011/02/17/extinction-and-climate/

----------------------

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp

----------------------

First up:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...an-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/

All that cold water, from melting Greenland and Arctic ice carries carbonic acid, which will make the ocean less basic, so it averages pH 8.1, when at the end of the 18th Century, it was pH 8.2. Seems like not too much, right? That is about a 30% increase, in acidity, enough to spike, at pH 7.7, so eggs, little fish, corals, and oysters DIE. The food chain can fail, from this, before the oceans heat up!

And by then, most desirable ocean species will be dead. We will be in the middle, of MASS EXTINCTION EVENT 6, which will challenge the P-T extinction, for top killer, of all geologic time.

bobgnote · Aug 2, 2012

We re-green, or the oceanic food-chain fails, soon enough. I suggest immediate expedition of hemp, algae, and switchgrass for most CO2-neutral biomass needs.

We need genetic engineering for botany, so we can re-green desertified lands and polluted land and sea areas. Or we get to go to hell, day after tomorrow.

We might suffer Mass Extinction Event 6, since extinction rates are already 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal!

Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

Excerpt:

The latest study, released in March 2012, was done by a team of researchers from five countries eho reviewed hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, and found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans changed even remotely as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, some 56 million years ago. During the PETM over a period of about 5000 years there was a surge of carbon dioxide which doubled atmospheric concentrations that resulted in global average temperatures surging up by about 6C.

We have already experienced atmospheric CO2 rising about 30 percent, to 393 parts per million in the last 100 years, with ocean pH falling by 0.1 unit, to 8.1. This rate of acidification is 10 times faster than during the PETM event 56 million years ago according to lead author Bärbel Hönisch. Predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that pH may fall another 0.3 units to 7.8 by the end of the century which could see a marine mass extinction event similar to those observed during the PETM.

We are already starting to see the effects of ocean acidification as it impacts on fisheries and ecosystems.

In a recent study, scientists from Stony Brook University found that the larvae of bay scallops and hard clams grow best at pre-industrial pH levels, while their shells corrode at the levels projected for 2100. See The effects of elevated carbon dioxide concentrations on the metamorphosis, size, and survival of larval hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), bay scallops (Argopecten irradians), and Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) (abstract | media release)

Off the U.S. Pacific Northwest, the death of oyster larvae has recently been linked to the upwelling of acidic water there. See Yale 360 November 2011 article - Northwest Oyster Die-offs Show Ocean Acidification Has Arrived

In a 2011 study of coral reefs off Papua New Guinea, scientists writing in the journal Nature Climate Change found that when pH dropped to 7.8, reef diversity declined by as much as 40 percent. The study concluded "Reef development ceased below pH 7.7. Our empirical data from this unique field setting confirm model predictions that ocean acidification, together with temperature stress, will probably lead to severely reduced diversity, structural complexity and resilience of Indo-Pacific coral reefs within this century." See Losers and winners in coral reefs acclimatized to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations (abstract)

Studies with clownfish larvae raised in the lab show that they lose their ability to sniff out predators and find their way home when pH drops below 7.8. See Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish (abstract)

Several other studies show that ocean acidification may be fatal to fish at various stages of their life cycle. See Skeptical Science 22 December 2011 article Ocean Acidification Is Fatal To Fish
Climate related changes in oceans may also increase jellyfish frequency with impacts on fisheries. See Climate-related increases in jellyfish frequency suggest a more gelatinous future for the North Sea (Climate-related increases in jellyfish frequency suggest a more gelatinous future for the North Sea) and Evidence for impacts by jellyfish on North Sea herring recruitment (Evidence for impacts by jellyfish on North Sea herring recruitment)

Ocean acidification impact on fisheries

Ocean acidification will impact the economic importance of fisheries, with the people most affected being island and developing countries reliant on subsistence fisheries for protein. A 2010 United Nations Environment Program report on Environmental Consequences of Ocean Acidification: a threat to Food Security (PDF) estimates that 3 billion people use fish protein in their diet, with one billion people dependent on subsistence fishing as a primary food source.

"The contribution of marine protein to global food security is substantial. Fish, including shellfish, contribute 15% of animal protein for three billion people worldwide. A further one billion people rely on fisheries for their primary source of protein. Fish are even more important in countries where other protein sources decline seasonally." says the report.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said in a 2010 media release: "Ocean acidification is yet another red flag being raised, carrying planetary health warnings about the uncontrolled growth in greenhouse gas emissions. It is a new and emerging piece in the scientific jigsaw puzzle, but one that is triggering rising concern".

"Whether ocean acidification on its own proves to be a major or a minor challenge to the marine environment and its food chain is to date unknown. But the phenomenon comes against a backdrop of already stressed seas and oceans as a result of over-fishing to other forms of environmental degradation. Thus the public might quite rightly ask how many red flags do governments need to see before the message to act gets through," he said at the launch of the report in Cancun in 2010.

Many commercial fishermen and aquaculture farmers are already aware of ocean acidification and the threat to their livelihoods and culture. It just requires Government's to impose the necessary regulations to limit and reduce carbon emissions. The National Fisheries Conservation Centre (NFCC) and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership have produced a series of informative videos which highlights the threat to commercial fisheries.

Resolving the problem of ocean acidification will not be easy, and may prove insurmountable in the timeframe we have available for taking mitigation action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"It's not a problem that can be quickly reversed," said Christopher Langdon, a biological oceanographer at the University of Miami who co-authored the study on Papua New Guinea reefs. "Once a species goes extinct it's gone forever. We're playing a very dangerous game."

By the end of this century with business as usual we are likely to hit a similar temperature of 6C of warming similar to that experienced during the PETM event 56 million years ago. We still have global carbon emissions increasing with a Record increase in Greenhouse gas emissions for 2010. Scientists such as James Hansen, Ken Caldeira and Eelco Rohling at December 2011 American Geophysical Union meeting warned about climate sensitivity and that the paleoclimate record points towards potential rapid climate change.

Unless we start mitigation action very soon what was done naturally in 5000 years we are doing in about 100 years. Scientists and economists have warned that Carbon Emissions need to peak this decade to meet a 2 °C temperature goal. Even the conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned Bold change of direction needed globally to meet climate commitments. Yet the Durban mandate from last year proposes no significant international action until at least 2020. Read climate policy analyst Mark Lynas description of the outcome of Durban - a major step forward but not for ten years.
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Aug 2, 2012

STUDY: Kardashians Get 40 Times More News Coverage Than Ocean Acidification

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/27/study-kardashians-get-40-times-more-news-covera/186703

Carbon dioxide emissions are not just warming up our atmosphere, they're also changing the chemistry of our oceans. This phenomenon is known as ocean acidification, or sometimes as global warming's "evil twin " or the "osteoporosis of the sea ." Scientists have warned that it poses a serious threat to ocean life. Yet major American news outlets covered the Kardashians over 40 times more often than ocean acidification over the past year and a half.

Rising carbon dioxide emissions have caused the oceans to become around 30 percent more acidic since the Industrial Revolution, and if we do not lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the ocean surface could be up to 150 percent more acidic by 2100. At that level, the shells of some plankton would dissolve , large parts of the ocean would become inhospitable to coral reef growth , and the rapidity of the change could threaten much of the marine food web . According to the National Research Council, the chemical changes are taking place "at an unprecedented rate and magnitude" and are "practically irreversible on a time scale of centuries."

Despite a boom of recent scientific research documenting this threat, there has been a blackout on the topic at most media outlets. Since the end of 2010, ABC, NBC, and Fox News have completely ignored ocean acidification, and the Los Angeles Times, USA TODAY, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CNN, and CBS have barely mentioned it at all.
Click to expand...

-----------------------

Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years

ScienceDaily (Mar. 7, 2012) The oceans may be acidifying faster today than they did in the last 300 million years, according to scientists publishing a paper this week in the journal Science.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307145430.htm

"What we're doing today really stands out in the geologic record," says lead author Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

"We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped out--new species evolved to replace those that died off. But if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about--coral reefs, oysters, salmon."

The oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air.

The gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor.

If too much carbon dioxide enters the ocean too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shell-building.

In a review of hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, the researchers found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans changed as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM.

In ocean sediment cores, the PETM appears as a brown mud layer flanked by thick deposits of white plankton fossils.

About 56 million years ago, a mysterious surge of carbon into the atmosphere warmed the planet and turned the oceans corrosive.

In about 5,000 years, atmospheric carbon doubled to 1,800 parts per million (ppm), and average global temperatures rose by about 6 degrees Celsius.

The carbonate plankton shells littering the seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown clay layer that scientists see in sediment cores today.

As many as half of all species of benthic foraminifera, a group of one-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went extinct, suggesting that deep-sea organisms higher on the food chain may have also disappeared, said paper co-author Ellen Thomas, a paleoceanographer at Yale University.
"It's really unusual that you lose more than 5 to 10 percent of species," she said.

Scientists estimate that ocean acidity--its pH--may have fallen as much as 0.45 units as the planet vented stores of carbon into the air.
Click to expand...

mamooth · Aug 2, 2012

Since the topic is kind of on ice, I'll point out that the main channel of the Northwest Passage is now almost open. A little ice left, probably gone within a week (unless the wind shoves down that big tongue to the west). It looks like the earliest opening ever. Heck, it used to not open at all -- Amundsen took 3 years to get through, and then the Canadians needed special ice-reinforced boats to take weeks to laboriously creep through the ice floes. It only started melting totally in the past 7 years or so, and now even yachts and cruise ships buzz right through.

_Inquisitor_ · Aug 2, 2012

I told Elmer he gave unlimited resources to warmists to copy paste and scream:

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...pdated-list-things-blamed-global-warming.html

And here we go...

bobgnote · Aug 3, 2012

You KNOW, Inquisitor, when you have even one intelligent post, let us all know, so we can throw a party. Since you may tend to wind up, on ignore, you should let us all have some notice, when you are about to actually get on topic.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statement_03.html

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

According to a recent poll, seven out of ten biologists think we are currently in the throes of a sixth mass extinction. Some say it could wipe out as many as 90 percent of all species living today. Yet other scientists dispute such dire projections.

As our panelists debate the issue, they also consider how one species -- Homo sapiens -- may be triggering a modern mass extinction.

We are surely in the midst of a mass extinction. Even though it's hard to compare past extinction rates with that of the present, given missing data from the past, we do know how to identify extinction periods: the elevation of extinction rates in those periods are at least a hundred-fold over the slow "background" rate of "normal" extinction.

Of about 6 to 10 million currently existing species, we have still only identified 1 million; we know more about vertebrate species than we do about plants and insects. But for groups that we know well, knowledge of very recent species extinctions -- and for current species, their ranges and the threats to them -- allows us to be certain that extinction rates are comparable to those of the great past extinctions. For example, for birds, of about 10,000 species worldwide, at least 128 have disappeared in the last 500 years, about 1,200 are currently seriously threatened with extinction (all but three from human activities); there is a real prospect of the loss of 500 bird species within this century.

For less well-known groups, we must use inference. We know there is a rough relationship between the area of a patch of habitat and the number of species it will contain. Since habitat destruction is the leading cause of endangerment and extinction, and we have data on the rate of habitat destruction, we can estimate rates of extinction in some cases. Introduced species -- those who migrate to a new area -- are the second leading cause of endangerment and extinction.

Information on the rate of species introduction and the nature of the impacts of introduced species on native species and ecosystems allows inferences about extinction rates. The evidence all points to a global tragedy with a profound loss of biodiversity.
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Aug 3, 2012

See how CO2 normally peaks at 280 ppm, throughout the Pleistocene or Holocene Epoch maxima?

See how CO2 suddenly moves up, in a geologic second, to really accelerate, 1950, all the way, to 400 ppm?

You know what ALWAYS HAPPENS, when CO2 goes up, really fast? Global temperatures follow, forced UP.

You know what happens, before temperatures get really HOT? First, temperatures ease upward, while ice melts and CO2 gets metabolized, by ocean water, which becomes relatively acidic. This keeps the atmospheric CO2 AND temperatures relatively low. Sea grasses start to proliferate.

But at some tipping point, the Arctic cap ice fails, which leaves the northern albedo ineffective, at reflecting energy, during northern summers. The planet will absorb a lot more energy, and that ice will all melt, every year. When we reach this point, the oceans will be killing oysters, corals, plankton, little fish, and eggs, with relative acidity, which is going on, NOW.

The Earth's oceans then start to warm. While they are out-gassing a lot of CO2 and CH4, already, this process accelerates, which will then accelerate both atmospheric GHG concentrations AND warming, of all global temperature measurements.

We will ALL be dead, by the time the oceans really start to warm up. Anoxic events will finish off whatever desirable species and families weren't killed off, by acidification. Rather than pass relatively acidic, cold water, the oceans will become caustic, in some places, but they won't respirate CO2, as well, without algae blooms and sea grasses.

Any surviving humans who want seafood will have to process jellyfish, into sushi.

Then the heavy tides will trigger seismic events and volcanism. Enjoy your jelly-sushi, kids!

bobgnote · Aug 3, 2012

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/index.html

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

According to a recent poll, seven out of ten biologists think we are currently in the throes of a sixth mass extinction. Some say it could wipe out as many as 90 percent of all species living today. Yet other scientists dispute such dire projections.

As our panelists debate the issue, they also consider how one species -- Homo sapiens -- may be triggering a modern mass extinction.

First, a general question. Are we now in a mass extinction, and if so, why does it matter?
Click to expand...

Check out the link, to see what the four experts said.

For me, it's a no-brainer. Our projected extinction rate is at least 100 x normal, and global warming is just starting to massage the tipping points, to runaway global warming and climate change.

When the oceanic acidification really gets going, ocean species will really start dying out, which they are doing, already.

When the ice really gets melting, and it is, already, we will lose ice albedo, and THEN we will notice warming, for sure. When that happens, the oceans will start to warm up, noticeably, and global temperatures will shoot UP.

Warm oceans will become caustic or anoxic, and they won't absorb CO2, after a point, which is when the Earth can really become a hothouse. The heavier tides will massage up a load of seismic and volcanic events.

Mass Extinction Event 6 can start to get hellish, any day now. And then the climate disasters will ACCELERATE. Do you think you will live, to see accelerating warming and climate change?

This might start to happen, in the 2020s, I think, but I believe that is when northern cap ice albedo will be a lot less effective, while acidification moves from causing oyster die-offs to wiping out fish, which were over-harvested. The 2020s will make you see, how shizzily-dizzly can really happen.

bobgnote · Aug 4, 2012

Five previous mass extinction events and the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction have preceded our modern Mass Extinction Event 6:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html

-----------------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events

Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction- 434 m.y.a.
The third largest extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction had two peak dying times separated by hundreds of thousands of years. During the Ordovician, most life was in the sea, so it was sea creatures such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites that were drastically reduced in number.

Late Devonian mass extinction- 354 m.y.a.
Three quarters of all species on Earth died out in the Late Devonian mass extinction, though it may have been a series of extinctions over several million years, rather than a single event. Life in the shallow seas were the worst affected, and reefs took a hammering, not returning to their former glory until new types of coral evolved over 100 million years later.

Permian mass extinction- 250 m.y.a.
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.

Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction- 200 m.y.a.
During the final 18 million years of the Triassic period, there were two or three phases of extinction whose combined effects created the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event. Climate change, flood basalt eruptions and an asteroid impact have all been blamed for this loss of life.

Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction- 56 m.y.a.
The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction - also known as the K/T extinction - is famed for the death of the dinosaurs. However, many other organisms perished at the end of the Cretaceous including the ammonites, many flowering plants and the last of the pterosaurs.
Click to expand...

---------------------

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year — which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis — this “Sixth Extinction” — is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed.

*

How is the Sixth Extinction different from previous events?

The current mass extinction is caused by humans.

At first glance, the physically caused extinction events of the past might seem to have little or nothing to tell us about the current Sixth Extinction, which is a patently human-caused event. For there is little doubt that humans are the direct cause of ecosystem stress and species destruction in the modern world through such activities as:

•transformation of the landscape
•overexploitation of species
•pollution
•the introduction of alien species

And because Homo sapiens is clearly a species of animal (however behaviorally and ecologically peculiar an animal), the Sixth Extinction would seem to be the first recorded global extinction event that has a biotic, rather than a physical, cause.

We are bringing about massive changes in the environment.

Yet, upon further reflection, human impact on the planet is a direct analogue of the Cretaceous cometary collision. Sixty-five million years ago that extraterrestrial impact — through its sheer explosive power, followed immediately by its injections of so much debris into the upper reaches of the atmosphere that global temperatures plummeted and, most critically, photosynthesis was severely inhibited — wreaked havoc on the living systems of Earth. That is precisely what human beings are doing to the planet right now: humans are causing vast physical changes on the planet.

What is the Sixth Extinction?

We can divide the Sixth Extinction into two discrete phases:

•Phase One began when the first modern humans began to disperse to different parts of the world about 100,000 years ago.
•Phase Two began about 10,000 years ago when humans turned to agriculture.

Humans began disrupting the environment as soon as they appeared on Earth.

The first phase began shortly after Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and the anatomically modern humans began migrating out of Africa and spreading throughout the world. Humans reached the middle east 90,000 years ago. They were in Europe starting around 40,000 years ago. Neanderthals, who had long lived in Europe, survived our arrival for less than 10,000 years, but then abruptly disappeared — victims, according to many paleoanthropologists, of our arrival through outright warfare or the more subtle, though potentially no less devastating effects, of being on the losing side of ecological competition.

Everywhere, shortly after modern humans arrived, many (especially, though by no means exclusively, the larger) native species typically became extinct.
Click to expand...

--------------------

And just how smart, are humans, when confronted, with any of this?

All these events were characterized, by dramatic increase, in CO2, so some CH4 (methane) was involved, during warming.

Humans are either denying the warming is happening, denying the greenhouse effect, denying the effects of industry and chainsaws, denying we can re-green, or humans are proposing lame carbon credits or substitution of natural gas, for other sequestered carbon combustion media, which simply allow the basic problems, to continue.

bobgnote · Aug 5, 2012

http://theconversation.edu.au/is-another-mass-extinction-event-on-the-way-5397

Why have mass extinctions of species occurred since the late Proterozoic (from 580 million years ago) and repeatedly through the Phanerozoic? Integral to these extinctions were abrupt changes in the physical and chemical properties of the atmosphere, ocean and land, inducing environmental changes at a pace to which many species could not adapt.

*

For the first time in planetary history a species has mastered combustion, first of carbon products of the biosphere, then of fossil carbon products hundreds of millions of years old. This has magnified its oxygenating capacities by many orders of magnitude. For example, whereas human respiration uses about two to seven calories each minute, driving a car commonly uses more than 1000 calories a minute and operating a power plant more than one million calories a minute.
Click to expand...

Figure 3: The rise in human population and in the number of extinct species between 1800 and 2010. Andrew Glickson/Democracy in Action

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/9524/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1150373#two

We now absorb 42 percent of the planets entire terrestrial net primary productivity. We use 50 percent of all fresh water. Weve transformed 50 percent of all land. Weve changed the chemical composition of the whole biosphere and all the worlds seas, bringing on global warming and ocean acidification. Most importantly, we raised the extinction rate from a natural level of one extinction per million species per year up to 30,000 per year. Thats three per hour.
Click to expand...

Figure 4: Loss of original biomes (major regional group of distinctive plant and animal communities best adapted to the regions physical natural environment, latitude, elevation, and terrain) by 1950, during 1950 and 1990 and projected loss by 2050. Ecosystems and Human Well-being Synthesis A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

The rate at which radiative forcing and temperature in the atmosphere are now rising exceeds those of previous events in the atmosphere and ocean system, excepting those associated with mass extinctions of species.

As shown in Figure 6, if we compare the current rise of more than 2ppm/year to the mean rise in atmospheric CO₂ of +0.43 ppm/year since 1750, the only recorded rise of similar magnitude occurred 55 million years ago. At this time, the release of some ~2000 GtC carbon as methane took place at a rate of ~0.1 ppm/year.

In terms of temperatures, the current rise rate of ~0.02 to 0.03 degrees Celsius/year is consistent with the fastest rates recorded in Cainozoic history (see Figure 6).

Throughout geological history many species succeeded in adapting to slow to moderate environmental changes. Some survived the most extreme environmental events. Burning the worlds fossil fuel reserves of more than 2000 GtC , analogous to the magnitude estimated for the 55 Ma-old Paleocene-Eocene Thermal event, is leading Earths climate and habitats into uncharted territory.
Click to expand...

Figure 6: Summary of rates of temperature changes, temperature changes per year, CO2 changes and CO2 rates per year during Cainozoic events. Andrew Glikson

bobgnote · Aug 5, 2012

http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...=is-coal-fly-ash-responsible-for-mas-11-01-23

Burning coal is nasty business, concentrating all kinds of toxic metals and resulting in potentially deadly fly ash. That's why stretches of the Emory and Clinch rivers in Tennessee essentially died when flooded with coal ash slurry two years ago.

Now imagine that happening on an apocalyptic scale: millennia-long volcanic eruptions setting on fire--even exploding--massive coal deposits in present day Siberia. That's what some scientists think may have set off the Permian mass extinction some 250 million years ago.

Roughly 90 percent of all ocean life died as a result. It was the end for ammonites and trilobites. Life itself may have barely survived the most devastating mass extinction event known to science, hence its name: the "Great Dying." And the reason could be coal ash, according to new research published in Nature Geoscience. (Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.)

Canadian geologists have found evidence of coal char--"remarkably similar to modern coal fly ash" in their own words--in ancient Arctic rocks. Given the toxic impact of modern coal fly ash on aquatic ecosystems, the scientists suggest that the massive coal conflagration may have created toxic marine conditions the world over.

Of course, humanity is currently setting off the sixth mass extinction event in Earth's history. And a big part of that is from burning coal, both the CO2 it releases that then causes climate change as well as all that fly ash. We may just be following Mother Nature's ancient recipe.
Click to expand...

What possibly happened, during the end of the Permian period was a carbonaceous meteorite struck the Earth, roughly opposite Siberia, which may have triggered thousands of years, of Siberian Traps eruptions, to cause all the coal-fly ash proliferation, around the world.

bobgnote · Aug 5, 2012

Past extinctions are tied, to climate change, in this 2007 Sci.Am. publication:

Mass Extinctions Tied to Past Climate Changes: Scientific American

Fossil and temperature records over the past 520 million years show a correlation between extinctions and climate change

Roughly 251 million years ago, an estimated 70 percent of land plants and animals died, along with 84 percent of ocean organismsan event known as the end Permian extinction. The cause is unknown but it is known that this period was also an extremely warm one. A new analysis of the temperature and fossil records over the past 520 million years reveals that the end of the Permian is not alone in this association: global warming is consistently associated with planetwide die-offs.

"There have been three major greenhouse phases in the time period we analyzed and the peaks in temperature of each coincide with mass extinctions," says ecologist Peter Mayhew of the University of York in England, who led the research examining the fossil and temperature records. "The fossil record and temperature data sets already existed but nobody had looked at the relationships between them."

Pairing these datathe relative number of different shallow sea organisms extant during a given time period and the record of temperature encased in the varying levels of oxygen isotopes in their shells over 10 million year intervalsreveals that eras with relatively high concentrations of greenhouse gases bode ill for the number of species on Earth. "The rule appears to be that greenhouse worlds adversely affect biodiversity," Mayhew says.

That also bodes ill for the fate of species currently on Earth as the global temperatures continue to rise to levels similar to those seen during the Permian. "The risk of future extinction through rapid global warming is primarily expected to occur through mismatches between the climates to which organisms are adapted in their current range and the future distribution of those climates," Mayhew and his colleagues write in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, though it may also be that warmer temperatures lead to less hospitable seas, he adds.

That is not to say that global warming was the cause of this Permian wipeout or that all mass extinctions are associated with warmer worldswitness the disappearance of 60 percent of different groups of marine organisms during the cooling at the end of the Ordovician period roughly 430 million years ago. But these scientists argue that the evidence of a link between climate change and mass extinctions gives reason to be concerned for the future. "We need to know the mechanism behind the associations and we need to know if associations of this sort also occur in shorter-term climatic fluctuations," Mayhew says. "That will help us decide if this is really a worry for the next generation or if the threat is merely a distant future threat."
Click to expand...

And, like an upperclass twit, following some other upperclass twit, Mayhew completely discounts how MAYBE temperature increases are long-term, given ice melts in the heat exchange and mild solar intensity, for decades. I guess Mayhew has heard of "DECADES.'

Of course, Mayhew hasn't seemed to notice, how CO2 is off the hook, for humans with chainsaws, cars, and factories, but this was five years ago. Maybe Mayhew has learned, to spell "C-H-A-I-N-saws, chainsaws!" It isn't that hard, even for somebody who is an inveterate media-masturbator.

bobgnote · Aug 5, 2012

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-predict-extinc

Forester Jay Malcolm of the University of Toronto and his international team of conservation professionals looked at the changes to vegetation types, or biomes, in 25 so-called hot spots--unique ecosystems with a wide range of endemic species. The researchers modeled what would happen to the plants in these areas if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doubled in the next 100 years.

*

Describing their work in the current issue of Conservation Biology the scientists note that the findings back similar results from other studies. And limited research into more widespread biomes showed comparable extinction rates
Click to expand...

----------------

Here's the IPCC report, from 2007:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-verdict-sc

The debate over whether Earth's climate is changing and if humanity is responsible for that change closed in Paris on February 2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its summary for policymakers—a summation of the salient science in its much longer report due in May—in which it said that climate change is "unequivocal" and estimated the chances of humans being behind it at 90 percent, or "very likely."

New observations and new models contributed to this certainty, ranging from Antarctic ice cores to improved understanding of solar fluxes. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere—379 parts per million (ppm) in 2005—have reached levels not seen in the last 650,000 years, which have varied between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. The burning of fossil fuels is the main CO2 contributor to the atmosphere, followed by clearing land for agriculture.

A better understanding of the constituents of the atmosphere, as well as various natural processes on Earth and on the sun, has allowed scientists to sum the various forcings—factors that can increase or decrease the retention of heat on the planet—for the first time. [see graph above). While the sun is contributing an extra 0.12 W/m2 (watts per meter2)—and aerosols and cloud cover combine to cool Earth by 1.2 W/m2—CO2, methane and nitrous oxide, among other greenhouse gases, are warming the globe by 2.3 W/m2.

Such radiative forcing is easy to see in the recent climate record: 11 of the past dozen years "rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850)," the scientists note in the summary. The Arctic has led the way, its temperatures increasing at twice the global average, but worldwide days of extreme temperatures have become far more frequent over the past 50 years on every continent except Antarctica [see graph below].

The ocean absorbs most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases—more than 80 percent—with temperatures rising up to 3,000 meters below the surface. Such warming provides stronger fuel for the furious storms called tropical cyclones that form over open waters (known in the Atlantic as hurricanes). It also causes the water itself to expand—so-called thermal expansion—contributing to a sea level rise of 0.17 meter (nearly seven inches) in the 20th century. And the rate of that expansion appears to be accelerating, averaging 3.1 millimeters (0.1 inch) per year between 1993 and 2003.

But, as the world's glaciers recede, melting ice is also contributing to the rise in sea levels. In fact, the last time the Arctic and Antarctic were three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer—roughly 125,000 years ago—sea levels rose by as much as six meters (20 feet) thanks to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

Such warming—three degrees C (5.4 degrees F)—is the scientists' best estimate of how much average temperatures would rise if greenhouse gas concentrations were allowed to double from preindustrial levels. Warming of 0.6 degree C (one degree F) is already guaranteed for this century, due to the CO2in place, which will remain there for centuries. That will have a host of impacts, from more severe droughts to more and stronger floods as a result of downpours.

A study of such impacts is now in the works by an assemblage of scientists under the auspices of the IPCC. That report is scheduled to be released in April, followed in May by another group's report on options for adaptation and mitigation. By November a complete synthesis of all three reports—totaling more than 1,600 pages—will be available. But the basic message is already clear: climate change is occurring and efforts must be made to minimize its dangerous consequences.
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Aug 5, 2012

Climate change has become politicized, no fooling! This, from August 2, 2012:

http://www.livescience.com/22069-po...ter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=LS_08032012

The politicization of climate change

Part of the problem is that climate change has moved out of the realm of research and into the political arena, Leiserowitz said. The climate-change views of the two political parties were not significantly different until the Kyoto Protocol negotiations of 1997, when policymakers began to look for solutions to global warming.

This was in the midst of the polarizing Clinton administration, and for some, the association made global warming belief seem unsavory. Even today, many climate-change naysayers think of former vice president Al Gore when they hear the words "climate change."

"They loathe Al Gore," Leiserowitz said. "Sometimes I joke that Al Gore could hold a press conference tomorrow to say that science has determined that the Earth is round and people out there would say, 'Well, no it isn't.'" [50 Cool Facts About Earth]

The findings about Gore come from a recent paper published by Leiserowitz and his colleagues in the journal Risk Analysis. In large public surveys, the researchers asked Americans to give their first thoughts when hearing the words "global warming." In 2003, just 7 percent of Americans responded with "naysayer" answers, such as "hoax" or "scam." By 2010, that number had risen to 23 percent. (Studies show that the majority of Americans do believe in global warming, Maibach said, but there is also a widespread misconception that there is disagreement among scientists over whether it is happening.)

The trend is driven by a few factors, Leiserowitz said. Political polarization is one. Like being anti-abortion or in favor of strict immigration laws, denial of climate change has become a "litmus test" for the Republican Party, he said. The "Climategate" scandal, in which emails between climate researchers were hacked from a University of East Anglia server in the United Kingdom, also diminished trust in climate scientists. Those emails were taken by some to suggest climatologists were making false statements about global warming. Climategate was covered more often in conservative media, Leiserowitz said. Though the scientists involved were eventually cleared of wrongdoing, the stigma stuck.

Finally, President Barack Obama's stated concern about climate change turns off people who don't like the president for his other policy stances, Leiserowitz said.

"If you don't trust the messenger, you're going to discount or reject the message," he said.
Click to expand...

This article also covers the self-outing of Dr.Richard Muller, as a self-described former skeptic, when big whoop, he still advocated fracking, on Democracy NOW! Fracking is to the environment what cleaner meth is to bath-houses.

Hey! If the epidemic is still spread, by shooting speed and having unprotected gay sex, the bath-houses are a nuisance, and they have to be closed!

If you pollute water tables, to get natural gas, and you burn sequestered carbon, what have you gained, relative to suppressing how you need to close down use, of sequestered carbon, altogether?

What part of OUT OF ORDER MEDIA AGENDAS is so hard, for professors, like Muller, to understand? It must be the part about how politicians all sold out, to fossil fuel media, so professors have to do that, as well. Swell play, Dickie.

We need CO2-neutral biomass, starting with hemp, algae, and switchgrass, with ultrasound processing, and we needed it yesterday, not more idiotic bath-house rhetoric, about changing the price of admission, to a pest-hole, or marginally improving the meth, which needle-sharing butt-slammers are using, to spread HIV!

bobgnote · Aug 5, 2012

We have all the atmosphere-related climate problems, which precede each of the major mass extinctions, so how will we fail, from a meteorite event, when we can see those coming and attack them, with emerging rocket-media?

Let's have a look at Fukushima, which is like 23 G.E. Mark I reactors, on the mainland US:

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012...rt-are-you-ready-for-a-mass-extinction-event/

Which Will Collapse First, The Economy Or The Spent Fuel Pool At Fukushima? (Ambassador Murata: Total Number Of Spent Fuel Rods At Fukushima Daiichi Site Excluding The Rods In The Pressure Vessel Is 11,421!!!)

From the article:

If they are MOX fuel, containing 6% plutonium, one fuel rod has the potential to kill 2.89 billion people. If this pool collapses, as Senator Wyden is now saying too, we would face a mass extinction event from the release of radiation in those rods.

That is, if we arent in one already. Nuke experts like Arnie Gundersen and Helen Caldicott are prepared to evacuate their families to the southern hemisphere if that happens. It is that serious.

So now you know, if you didnt before. We are in big trouble.

More info on reactor 4 down below.

- Fukushima is falling apart: are you ready? (End The Lie, April 21, 2012):

Thirteen months have passed since the Fukushima reactors exploded, and a U.S. Senator finally got off his ass and went to Japan to see what is going on over there.

What he saw was horrific.

And now he is saying that we are in big trouble.

See the letter he sent to U.S. Ambassador to Japan Ichiro Fujisaki, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and NRCs Chairman Gregory Jaczko here.

But what is so ironic about this is that we have been in this heap of trouble since March of 2011. March 17th, to be exact, when the plume of radioactive materials began bombarding the west coast of California.

And Oregon. And Washington. And British Columbia. And later Maine, Europe, and everywhere in between.

Independent researchers, nuke experts, and scientists, from oceanography to entomology and everywhere in between, having been trying to sound the alarm ever since.

The scientists most upset are those who have studied the effects of radiation on health. Ill say it again, so its really clear: we are in big trouble.

The most preliminary reports of soil contamination are starting to come in from the USGS, who has seemed reluctant to share this information. Los Angeles, California, Portland, Oregon, and Boulder, Colorado, so far have the highest radioactive particle contamination out of the entire US.

That being said, every single city tested across the country showed contamination from Fukushima. What is even more alarming, however, about the numbers coming in, is that they are from samples taken April 5th, of last year.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, has only recently confirmed that there were three meltdowns, and they have been ongoing, unabated, for thirteen months, and no effort has been made to contain them.

Technology has to be developed/invented to deal with the melted out corium under the reactors. Until then, they will keep doing what they have been doing.

TEPCO just keeps dumping water on them, after which they let it pour into the ocean, and steam up through the ground, every second of every day. The jet stream, and a highly dynamic portion of our atmosphere called the troposphere, have been swirling around massive amounts of radioactive particles and settling them out, mostly in rain, over the entire northern hemisphere, especially the west coast of North America, from Alaska down to Baja and even further.

Iodine, cesium, strontium, plutonium, uranium, and a host of other fission products have been coming directly from Japan to the west coast for thirteen months.

Maybe you have heard about sick seals, polar bears, tainted fish, mutations in dandelions and fruits and vegetables, possibly even animals already, and seaweed. In fact the kelp from Corona del Mar contained 40,000,000 bcq/kg of radioactive iodine, as reported in Scientific American several weeks ago.

If you dont know your becquerels, its a lot. Thats what your pacific fish feed on. And that was only ONE isotope reported. There were up to 1600 different isotopes that have been floating around in our air, pouring out of the reactors, and steaming out of the ground, every second of every day, for 13 months.

And there has been silence from our mainstream media, for which the depths of depravity are so severe I will devote an entire article just to the why at a future time.

But back to the research: reports in the past week indicate the pollen in southern California is radioactive now too, and it is flying around, and if you live there and go outside, you are breathing it in. And so are your children.

Along with fission products blowing over from Japan. And radiation in your drinking water. And in your rain. And in the fish you are eating. And your vegetables. And the milk supply. And its happening every second, of every day. For 13 months. Are you starting to see a problem here?

Problem is, thats not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is what Senator Wyden is all bent out of shape about, even though independent researchers and nuke experts have been warning about this for a year.

And that is that the Reactor #4 building is on the verge of collapsing. Seismicity standards rate the building at a zero, meaning even a small earthquake could send it into a heap of rubble. And sitting at the top of the building, in a pool that is cracked, leaking, and precarious even without an earthquake, are 1565 fuel rods (give or take a few), some of them fresh fuel that was ready to go into the reactor on the morning of March 11th when the earthquake and tsunami hit.

If they are MOX fuel, containing 6% plutonium, one fuel rod has the potential to kill 2.89 billion people. If this pool collapses, as Senator Wyden is now saying too, we would face a mass extinction event from the release of radiation in those rods.

That is, if we arent in one already. Nuke experts like Arnie Gundersen and Helen Caldicott are prepared to evacuate their families to the southern hemisphere if that happens. It is that serious.

So now you know, if you didnt before. We are in big trouble.

Get informed. Start paying attention to this. Every single statement in this article is verifiable, and I will continue to verify and validate the seriousness of this situation at every opportunity I have.

This may be the most important thing you ever pay attention to, for the sake of your family, friends, your neighbors, every one you know and meet, all of humanity.
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Aug 5, 2012

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/category/environment/

- 165,000 Bq/Kg from Fukushima river soil (Fukushima Diary, Aug 2, 2012):

Rivers gone dead:

Ministry of the environment conducted radiation tests at 120 points of rivers in Fukushima prefecture. The test was done from 4/29 to 6/20/2012.

The highest reading was 165,000 Bq/Kg from the river bottom soil of Ukedogawa river in Namie machi, where is in Hazard area.

According to Ordinance of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry No.112 [Link], radioactive material to contain more than 100 Bq/kg of Cs-134/137 must be properly stocked to not to cause public radiation hazard.

This is 1,650 times higher than the safety limit.
Click to expand...

They also measured 2 Bq/L of cesium from Abukuma river, but this is lower than 2.7 Bq/Kg from well water in Chiba. It needs to be verified if Fukushima river is actually cleaner than well water in Tokyo area.(cf. 2.7 Bq/kg of cesium measured from well water at 25km from the center of Tokyo)

-----------------------

- Radioactive tea voluntarily surrendered to Hong Kong authorities — 196 Bq/kg of cesium, almost double Japan’s limit (ENENews, Aug 3, 2012):

Nuclear Event Daily Update
Hong Kong
August 2, 2012

Tea bag

Sampled on June 8, 2012
Cs134= 76 Bq/kg
Cs137 = 120 Bq/kg
Total Cesium = 196 Bq/kg
Not exceeding Codex guideline levels
Voluntary surrendered by importer for disposal. Not distributed for sale in local market.
Click to expand...

----------------------

20,000 Bq/body from a man in Fukushima (Fukushima Diary, Aug 3, 2012):

The biggest health risk for Japanese is the accumulation of radiation because of contaminated food.
Official radiation measurement is not trust worthy, and they don’t measure all kinds of radionuclide.
This is one of the reasons why I evacuated Japan.

A hematological physician in Minamisoma general hospital (23km from Fukushima plant) wrote on his blog that he measured 20,000 Bq/body from a man in 70s living in Fukushima by WBC (Whole body counter) though it was already July.2012. This is the total of Cs-134 and Cs-137.

He measured 10,000 Bq/body from the wife as well. It’s about 300 Bq/Kg.
Click to expand...

---------------------

- TEPCO cheating on radiation levels by using “improved” monitoring posts (Safecast, July 31, 2012)

During a visit to Germany in November 2011, Kenichi Hasegawa, a resident of Iitate, Fukushima prefecture said that in March 2011 the Iitate Mayor had requested him and Professor Imanaka of Kyoto University to keep secret the extremely high radiation levels that they had measured.

When Professor Kaneko of Keio University went to Iitate with a survey meter in February 2012 he realized that the area surrounding the monitoring posts deliberately had been decontaminated to produce readings far below the actual radiation levels for the area.

On March 2012, the journalist Shoji Ozawa reported that surface soil had been replaced and that a thick iron shielding had been placed below a monitoring post in Iitate that measured 1.2uSv. He measured 2.4uSv when he walked 5m away from the post. The Ministry of Education currently publishes less than 1uSv for Iitate. Professor Imanaka of Kyoto Univeristy said that the current monitoring posts are not usable at all. Ozawa’s article in Tokyo Shinbun.
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Aug 6, 2012

I sure would like to see some more professional coverage, of how global warming is causing climate changes, which are causing Mass Extinction Event 6. So I left comments, for Democracy NOW! and for Climate Central:

http://www.democracynow.org/special/extreme_weather

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/great-lakes-water-temperatures-at-record-levels

I must reply to the extremely common, "doom and gloom" remark, above. The previous comment also disregards how extreme climate is a direct result, of global warming, which is a direct result, of humans setting anything flammable, on fire, and then, humans got chainsaws, cars, and factories.

The previous comment also disregards how the change, to cycles of drought or deluge has weakened forests, to enable infestations. See the North American pine forests, beset with Pine Beetles, to make them dead and flammable.

Climate change also includes oceanic acidification, and then the planet will absorb more heat, as the northern ice and permafrost fail, to out-gas a lot of CO2 and CH4, to join industrial greenhouse gasses, in the polluted atmosphere. Dying time is NOW, like it or not. The extinction rate is estimated, to be at least 100 x normal. If you have the gloom, I'm packing your doom, you see. Gloom is your personal business, however.

Let me explain, further.

If you are gloomy, you may be emotional, related to some lack, of rationale. But if you are RATIONAL, you should notice all previous mass extinction events and the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction, all preceded, by a rapid rise, in atmospheric CO2-concentration.

IF you are confused, our CO2 AND CH4 out-gassing is much faster, than before any previous mass extinction, including the deadliest killer, of all time, P-T extinction, which with the K-T extinction apparently involved a large meteorite strike, which may have caused millenia-long volcanic eruptions, on the other side of the world, from the impact.

What will happen, to US? Our solar intensity is relatively low, for the past several decades, but ice is melting, to keep average temperatures under control. This melting ice and rampant CO2 is causing oceanic acidification, which will kill off the oceanic food web, from its suddenness, which exceeds all previous onsets, of OA. Oysters, eggs, little fish, corals, and desirable plankton are probably all doomed, already.

As the northern polar ice fails, northern sea ice albedo (reflectivity) will fail, which is a major tipping point, toward the transition, from acidic oceans, to a hot-house planet, which will absorb a lot more energy, during northern summers, while the southern cap ice then fails. We'll all be dead by then, and human populations will reflect our negligence, at letting guys like Republicans drive around, while Democrats propose carbon credits, which is like increasing the price of admission, at a pest-hole bath-house, where the patrons shoot speed and engage in unprotected sex, to pass HIV, to spread a deadly AIDS epidemic.

People who want to frack, which pollutes water tables, to get natural gas are like meth-dealers, who give free needles, with cleaner crank, to people who are going to dirty those needles and spread HIV, as soon as they can. Get a don't-worry-be-happy CLUE: the bath-houses are CLOSED, for good reason. AIDS is still a problem.

Climate change is not going away. You can be more like Marty Short, if you want to, but like his awesome character, Ed Grimley says, we are "doomed as doomed can be!" Does that affect YOU, emotionally?

Then get smart, and kick that Barack kid, who promised to prioritize climate change, in 2008, 2010, and 2012, and he finally got outed, to support same-sex marriage, when W. Mitt got outed, for Bullygate, to get CO2-neutral biomass, which includes hemp, algae, and switchgrass, and we will need botanical engineering, to come up with plants, to re-green deserts and polluted areas, NOW. I don't know why Barack can't lead here, since he smoked the most pot, of anybody to get elected President, since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew the stuff, which used to be required, by law, of American farmers.

See also, "Henry Ford, Diesel, hemp, ethanol, plastic, 1941 plastic car," etc. You can't sledge a Corvette, can you!

But somebody had better hammer some common sense, into a lot of people, all at once. Get fools out of my face. I'll help. First lesson: We are already into Mass Extinction Event 6, which can either get blunted, by re-greening and proper care and aversion, of nuclear media (Fukushima can still hurt us, and 23 GE Mark I reactors are in the US), or we can DIE OUT. If you are foolish, you will get gloomy. If you are with fools, one of them will doom you. Eliminate fools, or else. Sorry about your luck, if you want to cut funding, to the NOAA, Navy, CIA, or DOD, for studying climate change.

You will end up, like OWS, under more surveillance than you can possibly imagine. That melted ice won't all flush out or fall off the edges of the Earth, you know!

Meanwhile, it looks like that Barack fellow will win the sack-race, for President, since W. Mitt won't get out his tax returns, and there go the swing states! When Barack decided to copy Romneycare, to shove 2400 pages of private insurer debacle, at all of us, without adjusting costs of healthcare, inflated by years of immigration, legal and otherwise, wars, gangs, cartels, and clowning, Barack and his party lost their 2008 majority, in the US House, so his friends, the Republicans, could show him how, to stonewall all of us and Congress and the Manning defense, while M.E.E.6 ripens.

Smarter people, not gloomy people must prevail. But "doom?" We're just about there.
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Aug 6, 2012

Paul Krugman, July 22, 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/opinion/krugman-loading-the-climate-dice.html?_r=2&hp

A couple of weeks ago the Northeast was in the grip of a severe heat wave. As I write this, however, its a fairly cool day in New Jersey, considering that its late July. Weather is like that; it fluctuates.

And this banal observation may be what dooms us to climate catastrophe, in two ways. On one side, the variability of temperatures from day to day and year to year makes it easy to miss, ignore or obscure the longer-term upward trend. On the other, even a fairly modest rise in average temperatures translates into a much higher frequency of extreme events like the devastating drought now gripping Americas heartland that do vast damage.

On the first point: Even with the best will in the world, it would be hard for most people to stay focused on the big picture in the face of short-run fluctuations. When the mercury is high and the crops are withering, everyone talks about it, and some make the connection to global warming. But let the days grow a bit cooler and the rains fall, and inevitably peoples attention turns to other matters.

Making things much worse, of course, is the role of players who dont have the best will in the world. Climate change denial is a major industry, lavishly financed by Exxon, the Koch brothers and others with a financial stake in the continued burning of fossil fuels. And exploiting variability is one of the key tricks of that industrys trade. Applications range from the Fox News perennial Its cold outside! Al Gore was wrong! to the constant claims that were experiencing global cooling, not warming, because its not as hot right now as it was a few years back.

How should we think about the relationship between climate change and day-to-day experience? Almost a quarter of a century ago James Hansen, the NASA scientist who did more than anyone to put climate change on the agenda, suggested the analogy of loaded dice. Imagine, he and his associates suggested, representing the probabilities of a hot, average or cold summer by historical standards as a die with two faces painted red, two white and two blue. By the early 21st century, they predicted, it would be as if four of the faces were red, one white and one blue. Hot summers would become much more frequent, but there would still be cold summers now and then.

And so it has proved. As documented in a new paper by Dr. Hansen and others, cold summers by historical standards still happen, but rarely, while hot summers have in fact become roughly twice as prevalent. And 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000.

But thats not all: really extreme high temperatures, the kind of thing that used to happen very rarely in the past, have now become fairly common. Think of it as rolling two sixes, which happens less than 3 percent of the time with fair dice, but more often when the dice are loaded. And this rising incidence of extreme events, reflecting the same variability of weather that can obscure the reality of climate change, means that the costs of climate change arent a distant prospect, decades in the future. On the contrary, theyre already here, even though so far global temperatures are only about 1 degree Fahrenheit above their historical norms, a small fraction of their eventual rise if we dont act.

The great Midwestern drought is a case in point. This drought has already sent corn prices to their highest level ever. If it continues, it could cause a global food crisis, because the U.S. heartland is still the worlds breadbasket. And yes, the drought is linked to climate change: such events have happened before, but theyre much more likely now than they used to be.

Now, maybe this drought will break in time to avoid the worst. But there will be more events like this. Joseph Romm, the influential climate blogger, has coined the term Dust-Bowlification for the prospect of extended periods of extreme drought in formerly productive agricultural areas. He has been arguing for some time that this phenomenon, with its disastrous effects on food security, is likely to be the leading edge of damage from climate change, taking place over the next few decades; the drowning of Florida by rising sea levels and all that will come later.

And here it comes.

Will the current drought finally lead to serious climate action? History isnt encouraging. The deniers will surely keep on denying, especially because conceding at this point that the science theyve trashed was right all along would be to admit their own culpability for the looming disaster. And the public is all too likely to lose interest again the next time the die comes up white or blue.

But lets hope that this time is different. For large-scale damage from climate change is no longer a disaster waiting to happen. Its happening now.
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Aug 6, 2012

Sci.Am., Nov. 2012:

http://www.geog.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Scientific American Article.pdf

ight now about one billion people suffer from chronic hunger. the world’s farmers grow enough food to feed them, but it is not properly distributed and, even if it were, many cannot afford it, because prices are escalating.
Click to expand...

----------------------

Nature Mag, May 2012:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html

Here we use a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the relative yield performance of organic and conventional farming systems globally. Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems.
Click to expand...

_Inquisitor_ · Aug 6, 2012

Can somebody tell if spammers and spam are allowed on PF?

bobgnote · Aug 7, 2012

_Inquisitor_ said: ↑

Can somebody tell if spammers and spam are allowed on PF?
Click to expand...

Instead of posting similar idiocy, in every post, at many threads, you can go ahead and report yourself, to a moderator.

Here are some pay-per-view or member-benefit peer-reviewed studies, which I won't pay for, but until we get to look at some really definitive stuff, in Nature Mag. or AGU, this will let you know, the professors are churning these out, and peers are reviewing what is published:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470800195X

Threatening processes can cause biodiversity loss (either through declines in species’ abundance or loss of species from communities), and they can act alone or in combination. The schematic shows three examples of threatening processes: habitat loss, harvest and climate change. (a) Acting singularly, each process has varying negative effects on biodiversity such as a reduction in carrying capacity (habitat loss), direct decline in abundance (harvest) or reduction in range size (climate change). Inset: a fragmented forest reserve in the northeast Brazilian Amazon in 2004 succumbing to fire (photo credit: Jos Barlow). (b) Many systems show multiple threatening processes acting together. A fully additive model predicts that the combined negative effects are simply the sum of each process's individual effects, whereas combinations might result in only partial additivity (e.g. further range restrictions from habitat loss encompass those predicted from climate change). A synergy among processes implies a positive interaction (feedback) whereby the total negative effect on biodiversity is greater than the sum of each threatening process's individual contribution. Small synergistic interactions will result in population decline (i.e. the declining population paradigm); however, only when large synergies occur that push populations below their minimum viable population (MVP) size does extinction risk become nonnegligible (i.e. the small population paradigm).
Click to expand...

--------------------

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/325/1228/469.short

This paper re-evaluates whether we are really at the start of a mass extinction caused by humans. I consider the present, past and future of human-caused extinctions. As regards the present, estimates of extinction rates based on Red Data Books underestimate real values by a large factor, because the books evaluate only those species that have attracted specific attention and searches. Especially in tropical areas with few resident biologists, many poorly known species go extinct without having been the object of specific attention, and others disappear even before being described. A 'green list' of species known to be secure is needed to complement 'red books' of species known to be extinct. As regards the past, it is now clear that the first arrival of humans at any oceanic island with no previous human inhabitants has always precipitated a mass extinction in the island biota. Well-known victims include New Zealand's moas, Madagascar's giant lemurs, and scores of bird species on Hawaii and other tropical Pacific islands. Late-Pleistocene or Holocene extinctions of large mammals after the first arrival of humans in North America, South America and Australia may also have been caused by humans. Hence human-caused mass extinction is not a hypothesis for the future but an event that has been underway for thousands of years. As regards the future, consideration of the main mechanisms of human-caused extinctions (overhunting, effects of introduced species, habitat destruction, and secondary ripple effects) indicates that the rate of extinction is accelerating. The basic reason is that there are now more humans than ever before, armed with more potent destructive technology, and encroaching on the world's most species-rich habitats: the continental tropical rainforests.
Click to expand...

----------------------

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11466.short

Many scientists argue that we are either entering or in the midst of the sixth great mass extinction. Intense human pressure, both direct and indirect, is having profound effects on natural environments. The amphibians—frogs, salamanders, and caecilians—may be the only major group currently at risk globally. A detailed worldwide assessment and subsequent updates show that one-third or more of the 6,300 species are threatened with extinction. This trend is likely to accelerate because most amphibians occur in the tropics and have small geographic ranges that make them susceptible to extinction. The increasing pressure from habitat destruction and climate change is likely to have major impacts on narrowly adapted and distributed species. We show that salamanders on tropical mountains are particularly at risk. A new and significant threat to amphibians is a virulent, emerging infectious disease, chytridiomycosis, which appears to be globally distributed, and its effects may be exacerbated by global warming. This disease, which is caused by a fungal pathogen and implicated in serious declines and extinctions of >200 species of amphibians, poses the greatest threat to biodiversity of any known disease. Our data for frogs in the Sierra Nevada of California show that the fungus is having a devastating impact on native species, already weakened by the effects of pollution and introduced predators. A general message from amphibians is that we may have little time to stave off a potential mass extinction.
Click to expand...

---------------------

From The Guardian, 2011:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...l-infrastructure-climate-change?newsfeed=true

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA's calculations.

Birol's warning comes at a crucial moment in international negotiations on climate change, as governments gear up for the next fortnight of talks in Durban, South Africa, from late November. "If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures to 2C of warming] will be closed forever," said Birol.
Click to expand...

What amazes me about all these reporters and academians and UN guys and politicians is NONE OF THEM WILL GET CO2-NEUTRAL BIOMASS RESEARCH, TO CATCH UP WITH HENRY FORD'S HEMP, and none of the pollie-hacks get algae or switchgrass or ultrasound ethanol processing or radical re-greening or genetic engineering, for botany. And we are now in M.E.E.6.

Let's see how fast the TV star-media catches on, and can they adjust, to their distorted agendas?

bobgnote · Aug 7, 2012

bobgnote · Aug 7, 2012

More PPV peer-reviewed pubs:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1670/3037.short

The effects of species declines and extinction on biotic interactions remain poorly understood. The loss of a species is expected to result in the loss of other species that depend on it (coextinction), leading to cascading effects across trophic levels. Such effects are likely to be most severe in mutualistic and parasitic interactions. Indeed, models suggest that coextinction may be the most common form of biodiversity loss. Paradoxically, few historical or contemporary coextinction events have actually been recorded. We review the current knowledge of coextinction by: (i) considering plausible explanations for the discrepancy between predicted and observed coextinction rates; (ii) exploring the potential consequences of coextinctions; (iii) discussing the interactions and synergies between coextinction and other drivers of species loss, particularly climate change; and (iv) suggesting the way forward for understanding the phenomenon of coextinction, which may well be the most insidious threat to global biodiversity.
Click to expand...

----------------------
(post of pdf version, of prior post)

http://www.lli-manassas.org/uploads/Documents/classes/The Sixth Extinction (ActionBioscience).pdf

mamooth · Aug 10, 2012

There's currently a hurricane-level storm over the Arctic Ocean north of the Bering Strait, and ice levels are nosediving. Summer storms of that size melt the ice by churning it up with the warmer water, and by blowing ice south into warmer waters.

So, pretty much everyone is now predicting a new record low this year for Arctic ice area. The question is just how low. This Arctic Ocean water is usually stratified. Colder less saline water, originating from the continents, sits on top of the warmer and saltier water down below. This storm was big enough to mix the top and bottom layers, bringing the warmer water up. We simply have no experience as to exactly what that will do, or how long the destratification will last.

_Inquisitor_ · Aug 11, 2012

Is any debate possible with mamooth and/or bobgnote?
That was the Q#1 to mods?

On a personal note, may I ask mods to delete the both and agent_286 and ban then them.

Popping some pop-corn and coke to watch the reaction or rather absence of thereof from mods. Wouldn't be surprised if mods reprimand or ban myself.

Hello mods, is anybody there? Can you just leave mindless nasty trolls on Obama's side to make PF a breathable space?

Log in or Sign up

The recent Greenland sheet ice melt is a harbinger, of Mass Extinction Event 6:

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

_Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

_Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

_Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The recent Greenland sheet ice melt is a harbinger, of Mass Extinction Event 6:

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

_Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

_Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

_Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches