ADVERTISEMENT

Scientists expected thawing wetlands in Siberia’s permafrost. What they found is ‘much more dangerous.’

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,133
58,316
113
Scientists have long been worried about what many call “the methane bomb” — the potentially catastrophic release of methane from thawing wetlands in Siberia’s permafrost.
But now a study by three geologists says that a heat wave in 2020 has revealed a surge in methane emissions “potentially in much higher amounts” from a different source: thawing rock formations in the Arctic permafrost.
The difference is that thawing wetlands releases “microbial” methane from the decay of soil and organic matter, while thawing limestone — or carbonate rock — releases hydrocarbons and gas hydrates from reservoirs both below and within the permafrost, making it “much more dangerous” than past studies have suggested.
Nikolaus Froitzheim, who teaches at the Institute of Geosciences at the University of Bonn, said that he and two colleagues used satellite maps that measured intense methane concentrations over two “conspicuous elongated areas” of limestone — stripes that were several miles wide and up to 375 miles long — in the Taymyr Peninsula and the area around northern Siberia.
ADVERTISING
The study was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Surface temperatures during the heat wave in 2020 soared to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1979-2000 norms. In the long stripes, there is hardly any soil, and vegetation is scarce, the study says. So the limestone crops out of the surface. As the rock formations warm up, cracks and pockets opened up, releasing methane that had been trapped inside.
Satellite image and atmospheric methane concentrations during May and August 2020 of the Taymyr Peninsula, Northern Siberia. Light gray stripes on the satellite image are outcrop areas of carbonate formations bordering the hydrocarbon-bearing Yenisey-Khatanga Basin. (Nikolaus Froitzheim, Dmitry Zastrozhnov and GHGSAT)
The concentrations of methane were elevated by about 5 percent, Froitzheim said. Further tests showed the continued concentration of methane through the spring of 2021 despite the return of low temperatures and snow in the region.
Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground
“We would have expected elevated methane in areas with wetlands,” Froitzheim said. “But these were not over wetlands but on limestone outcrops. There is very little soil in these. It was really a surprising signal from hard rock, not wetlands.”
The carbonates in the outcroppings date back 541 million years to the Paleozoic era, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
“It’s intriguing. It’s not good news if it’s right,” said Robert Max Holmes, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. “Nobody wants to see more potentially nasty feedbacks and this is potentially one.”
“What we do know with quite a lot of confidence is how much carbon is locked up in the permafrost. It’s a big number and as the Earth warms and permafrost thaws, that ancient organic matter is available to microbes for microbial processes and that releases CO2 and methane,” Holmes said. “If something in the Arctic is going to keep me up at night that’s still what it is.” But he said the paper warranted further study.
The geologists who wrote the report usually study things such as tectonic plate boundaries and the way those geologic plates fold over one another. But they have worked in the Arctic and that has piqued their interest.
Methane gas is released from seep holes at the bottom of Esieh Lake, Alaska. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
The biggest sources of methane in the world are agricultural, such as rice growing, and leaks from hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. But Froitzheim said that in the permafrost “the question is: how much will come, and we don’t really know.”
Normally the frozen permafrost acts as a cap, sealing methane below. It also can lock up gas hydrates, which are crystalline solids of frozen water that contain huge amounts of methane. Unstable at normal sea-level pressure and temperatures, gas hydrates can be dangerously explosive as temperatures rise.
The study said that gas hydrates in the Earth’s permafrost are estimated to contain 20 gigatons of carbon. That’s a small percentage of all carbon trapped in the permafrost, but the continued warming of gas hydrates could cause disruptive and rapid releases of methane from rock outcrops.
“It will be important to continue to compare methane in future years to really pinpoint how much additional geologic methane is being emitted to the atmosphere as the permafrost thaws," said Ted Schuur, professor of ecosystem ecology at Northern Arizona University. “We know the heat wave was real, but whether it triggered the methane release cannot be determined without additional years of methane data."
The Arctic has also delivered other sobering news. Polar Portal, a website where Danish Arctic research institutions present updated information about ice, said last week that a “massive melting event” had been big enough to cover Florida with two inches of water.

 
Scientists have long been worried about what many call “the methane bomb” — the potentially catastrophic release of methane from thawing wetlands in Siberia’s permafrost.
But now a study by three geologists says that a heat wave in 2020 has revealed a surge in methane emissions “potentially in much higher amounts” from a different source: thawing rock formations in the Arctic permafrost.
The difference is that thawing wetlands releases “microbial” methane from the decay of soil and organic matter, while thawing limestone — or carbonate rock — releases hydrocarbons and gas hydrates from reservoirs both below and within the permafrost, making it “much more dangerous” than past studies have suggested.
Nikolaus Froitzheim, who teaches at the Institute of Geosciences at the University of Bonn, said that he and two colleagues used satellite maps that measured intense methane concentrations over two “conspicuous elongated areas” of limestone — stripes that were several miles wide and up to 375 miles long — in the Taymyr Peninsula and the area around northern Siberia.
ADVERTISING
The study was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Surface temperatures during the heat wave in 2020 soared to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1979-2000 norms. In the long stripes, there is hardly any soil, and vegetation is scarce, the study says. So the limestone crops out of the surface. As the rock formations warm up, cracks and pockets opened up, releasing methane that had been trapped inside.
Satellite image and atmospheric methane concentrations during May and August 2020 of the Taymyr Peninsula, Northern Siberia. Light gray stripes on the satellite image are outcrop areas of carbonate formations bordering the hydrocarbon-bearing Yenisey-Khatanga Basin. (Nikolaus Froitzheim, Dmitry Zastrozhnov and GHGSAT)
The concentrations of methane were elevated by about 5 percent, Froitzheim said. Further tests showed the continued concentration of methane through the spring of 2021 despite the return of low temperatures and snow in the region.
Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground
“We would have expected elevated methane in areas with wetlands,” Froitzheim said. “But these were not over wetlands but on limestone outcrops. There is very little soil in these. It was really a surprising signal from hard rock, not wetlands.”
The carbonates in the outcroppings date back 541 million years to the Paleozoic era, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
“It’s intriguing. It’s not good news if it’s right,” said Robert Max Holmes, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. “Nobody wants to see more potentially nasty feedbacks and this is potentially one.”
“What we do know with quite a lot of confidence is how much carbon is locked up in the permafrost. It’s a big number and as the Earth warms and permafrost thaws, that ancient organic matter is available to microbes for microbial processes and that releases CO2 and methane,” Holmes said. “If something in the Arctic is going to keep me up at night that’s still what it is.” But he said the paper warranted further study.
The geologists who wrote the report usually study things such as tectonic plate boundaries and the way those geologic plates fold over one another. But they have worked in the Arctic and that has piqued their interest.
Methane gas is released from seep holes at the bottom of Esieh Lake, Alaska. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
The biggest sources of methane in the world are agricultural, such as rice growing, and leaks from hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. But Froitzheim said that in the permafrost “the question is: how much will come, and we don’t really know.”
Normally the frozen permafrost acts as a cap, sealing methane below. It also can lock up gas hydrates, which are crystalline solids of frozen water that contain huge amounts of methane. Unstable at normal sea-level pressure and temperatures, gas hydrates can be dangerously explosive as temperatures rise.
The study said that gas hydrates in the Earth’s permafrost are estimated to contain 20 gigatons of carbon. That’s a small percentage of all carbon trapped in the permafrost, but the continued warming of gas hydrates could cause disruptive and rapid releases of methane from rock outcrops.
“It will be important to continue to compare methane in future years to really pinpoint how much additional geologic methane is being emitted to the atmosphere as the permafrost thaws," said Ted Schuur, professor of ecosystem ecology at Northern Arizona University. “We know the heat wave was real, but whether it triggered the methane release cannot be determined without additional years of methane data."
The Arctic has also delivered other sobering news. Polar Portal, a website where Danish Arctic research institutions present updated information about ice, said last week that a “massive melting event” had been big enough to cover Florida with two inches of water.

Oh well cue the ''deniers'' but science still and will always win but I'll be long dead by then so why worry?
 
  • Sad
Reactions: cigaretteman
Doesn't matter...we're phvcked.
It may require us to "go beyond" Net "0" emissions.

Pay people to actively remove carbon dioxide from the air using renewable energy.
For the laypersons, this data implies that if we hit zero manmade emissions, we've triggered a "tipping point" that will continue to emit greenhouse gases FOR us, for perhaps hundreds of years moving forward.

Which means we'll need to offset that to prevent a real catastrophe.
 
On the bright side, Iowans have less worry about the next ice age!

glaciers.gif
 
Scientists have long been worried about what many call “the methane bomb” — the potentially catastrophic release of methane from thawing wetlands in Siberia’s permafrost.
But now a study by three geologists says that a heat wave in 2020 has revealed a surge in methane emissions “potentially in much higher amounts” from a different source: thawing rock formations in the Arctic permafrost.
The difference is that thawing wetlands releases “microbial” methane from the decay of soil and organic matter, while thawing limestone — or carbonate rock — releases hydrocarbons and gas hydrates from reservoirs both below and within the permafrost, making it “much more dangerous” than past studies have suggested.
Nikolaus Froitzheim, who teaches at the Institute of Geosciences at the University of Bonn, said that he and two colleagues used satellite maps that measured intense methane concentrations over two “conspicuous elongated areas” of limestone — stripes that were several miles wide and up to 375 miles long — in the Taymyr Peninsula and the area around northern Siberia.
ADVERTISING
The study was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Surface temperatures during the heat wave in 2020 soared to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1979-2000 norms. In the long stripes, there is hardly any soil, and vegetation is scarce, the study says. So the limestone crops out of the surface. As the rock formations warm up, cracks and pockets opened up, releasing methane that had been trapped inside.
Satellite image and atmospheric methane concentrations during May and August 2020 of the Taymyr Peninsula, Northern Siberia. Light gray stripes on the satellite image are outcrop areas of carbonate formations bordering the hydrocarbon-bearing Yenisey-Khatanga Basin. (Nikolaus Froitzheim, Dmitry Zastrozhnov and GHGSAT)
The concentrations of methane were elevated by about 5 percent, Froitzheim said. Further tests showed the continued concentration of methane through the spring of 2021 despite the return of low temperatures and snow in the region.
Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground
“We would have expected elevated methane in areas with wetlands,” Froitzheim said. “But these were not over wetlands but on limestone outcrops. There is very little soil in these. It was really a surprising signal from hard rock, not wetlands.”
The carbonates in the outcroppings date back 541 million years to the Paleozoic era, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
“It’s intriguing. It’s not good news if it’s right,” said Robert Max Holmes, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center. “Nobody wants to see more potentially nasty feedbacks and this is potentially one.”
“What we do know with quite a lot of confidence is how much carbon is locked up in the permafrost. It’s a big number and as the Earth warms and permafrost thaws, that ancient organic matter is available to microbes for microbial processes and that releases CO2 and methane,” Holmes said. “If something in the Arctic is going to keep me up at night that’s still what it is.” But he said the paper warranted further study.
The geologists who wrote the report usually study things such as tectonic plate boundaries and the way those geologic plates fold over one another. But they have worked in the Arctic and that has piqued their interest.
Methane gas is released from seep holes at the bottom of Esieh Lake, Alaska. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
The biggest sources of methane in the world are agricultural, such as rice growing, and leaks from hydraulic fracturing in the U.S. Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. But Froitzheim said that in the permafrost “the question is: how much will come, and we don’t really know.”
Normally the frozen permafrost acts as a cap, sealing methane below. It also can lock up gas hydrates, which are crystalline solids of frozen water that contain huge amounts of methane. Unstable at normal sea-level pressure and temperatures, gas hydrates can be dangerously explosive as temperatures rise.
The study said that gas hydrates in the Earth’s permafrost are estimated to contain 20 gigatons of carbon. That’s a small percentage of all carbon trapped in the permafrost, but the continued warming of gas hydrates could cause disruptive and rapid releases of methane from rock outcrops.
“It will be important to continue to compare methane in future years to really pinpoint how much additional geologic methane is being emitted to the atmosphere as the permafrost thaws," said Ted Schuur, professor of ecosystem ecology at Northern Arizona University. “We know the heat wave was real, but whether it triggered the methane release cannot be determined without additional years of methane data."
The Arctic has also delivered other sobering news. Polar Portal, a website where Danish Arctic research institutions present updated information about ice, said last week that a “massive melting event” had been big enough to cover Florida with two inches of water.

This is serious stuff.

A few years back there were numerous predictions that we could reach a disastrous methane tipping point in the 2040-2050 time frame. Then some "moderate" climate scientists like Michael Mann began walking us back from the ledge. He may have been premature. And that time frame may be optimistic.
 
It may require us to "go beyond" Net "0" emissions.

Pay people to actively remove carbon dioxide from the air using renewable energy.
For the laypersons, this data implies that if we hit zero manmade emissions, we've triggered a "tipping point" that will continue to emit greenhouse gases FOR us, for perhaps hundreds of years moving forward.

Which means we'll need to offset that to prevent a real catastrophe.
I'm afraid that carbon sequestration follows the same path as recycling plastic. The recycling movement was created by the plastics industry and today we produce FAR more plastic than ever and less than 10% (and that might be a high estimate) gets recycled. Carbon sequestration is an unlikely solution given it's costs and the immense scale needed and is funded and pushed by fossil fuel companies to allow them to continue exploiting their money-making resources.

I doubt net zero will be good enough, as you said. I further doubt we can get beyond that as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

We're phvcked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
The vapors are going to get us! Run for your life! Nasty vapors on the loose!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
I'm afraid that carbon sequestration follows the same path as recycling plastic. The recycling movement was created by the plastics industry and today we produce FAR more plastic than ever and less than 10% (and that might be a high estimate) gets recycled. Carbon sequestration is an unlikely solution given it's costs and the immense scale needed and is funded and pushed by fossil fuel companies to allow them to continue exploiting their money-making resources.

I doubt net zero will be good enough, as you said. I further doubt we can get beyond that as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

We're phvcked.
The good news is that there is now a (barely visible) push for laws that make packaging producers responsible for the cleanup. That sort of approach, plus a serious carbon tax, plus laws that reflect the actual seriousness of the problem by banning certain fossil energy activities - all that and more are needed. And needed now, not starting in 5 or 10 years.

Carbon sequestration from the air or oceans is outrageously expensive. Carbon sequestration from power plants and autos and so on (point of CO2 release) is only moderately expensive. We should be doing the latter on an accelerating schedule and investing in the former.
 
I wonder where we're at with carbon "sponge" technology. Or perhaps it's not even close to feasible. Man made absorbers.
 
I'm afraid that carbon sequestration follows the same path as recycling plastic. The recycling movement was created by the plastics industry and today we produce FAR more plastic than ever and less than 10% (and that might be a high estimate) gets recycled. Carbon sequestration is an unlikely solution given it's costs and the immense scale needed and is funded and pushed by fossil fuel companies to allow them to continue exploiting their money-making resources.

I doubt net zero will be good enough, as you said. I further doubt we can get beyond that as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

We're phvcked.
The simple reason most plastics are not recycled, is cost

A carbon tax on the oil needed to produce new plastic would tip that balance. We're addicted to single-use plastic containers and that needs to change.
 
I'm afraid that carbon sequestration follows the same path as recycling plastic. The recycling movement was created by the plastics industry and today we produce FAR more plastic than ever and less than 10% (and that might be a high estimate) gets recycled. Carbon sequestration is an unlikely solution given it's costs and the immense scale needed and is funded and pushed by fossil fuel companies to allow them to continue exploiting their money-making resources.

I doubt net zero will be good enough, as you said. I further doubt we can get beyond that as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

We're phvcked.
we’ve been phvcked for 20 years . People now just starting to realize it’s happening far faster than they thought possible.
 
On the bright side, Iowans have less worry about the next ice age!

glaciers.gif
That was never a very serious concern over the next 1000 years (next 100,000 years, perhaps).

What we're looking at now, is something that will drastically alter our planet within a mere few hundred years. The only geologic event that remotely compares is the Giant Meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. Even the Deccan Traps took thousands of years (perhaps many tens of thousands) to alter the climate.
 
That was never a very serious concern over the next 1000 years (next 100,000 years, perhaps).

What we're looking at now, is something that will drastically alter our planet within a mere few hundred years. The only geologic event that remotely compares is the Giant Meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. Even the Deccan Traps took thousands of years (perhaps many tens of thousands) to alter the climate.
On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
 
That was never a very serious concern over the next 1000 years (next 100,000 years, perhaps).

What we're looking at now, is something that will drastically alter our planet within a mere few hundred years. The only geologic event that remotely compares is the Giant Meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. Even the Deccan Traps took thousands of years (perhaps many tens of thousands) to alter the climate.
True. Except that a "few hundred years" is pretty optimistic.

Even if we never hit that methane bomb, even old farts like me will be alive to see tragedies on a massive scale. Human tragedies, wildlife tragedies, environmental tragedies.

And that's assuming we don't make things worse with wars. Which we probably will.

And let's not forget pandemics. As long as we persist with unsafe factory livestock production methods - which are effectively Petri dishes for viral and bacterial evolution - we can predict more of those, with or without government or corporate programs making dangerous mistakes.

So much to do; so little time. And too many idiots in the way.
 
That was never a very serious concern over the next 1000 years (next 100,000 years, perhaps).

What we're looking at now, is something that will drastically alter our planet within a mere few hundred years. The only geologic event that remotely compares is the Giant Meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. Even the Deccan Traps took thousands of years (perhaps many tens of thousands) to alter the climate.
It has been posited that the ''Deccan Traps'' were a lasting after affect of the Chixculub event.
 
Keyword: LOCALLY

Everything else in your excerpt is referring to 10,000-100,000 years
Everything I've seen is that in the last 30 years there has been increasing awareness that drastic shifts have occurred in very short periods.

e.g. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises

Briefly, the data indicate that cooling into the Younger Dryas occurred in a few prominent decade(s)-long steps, whereas warming at the end of it occurred primarily in
one especially large step of about 8°C in about 10 years
 
Is there any justification - at all - for fossil energy subsidies?

Is there any justification for relaxing water safety standards to make fracking easier and cheaper?

Is there any reason not to charge Exxon and the rest for the actual cost of carbon release?

No, give all of the subsidies currently given to fossil fuel industries to green twch industries. So what if we pay $8 per gallon for fuel, that will just force everyone off internal combustion engines quicker and cause a drop in electrics. Or, better yet, spur a development to reduce the energy cost of producing hydrogen or some other currently unforeseen energy base. Maybe a Tony Stark will emerge and come up with a real arc reactor.
 
Everything I've seen is that in the last 30 years there has been increasing awareness that drastic shifts have occurred in very short periods.

e.g. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises

Briefly, the data indicate that cooling into the Younger Dryas occurred in a few prominent decade(s)-long steps, whereas warming at the end of it occurred primarily in one especially large step of about 8°C in about 10 years

Such climate oscillations have a characteristic form consisting of gradual cooling followed by more abrupt cooling, a cold interval, and finally an abrupt warming. Events were most commonly spaced about
1,500 years apart, although spacing of 3,000 or 4,500 years is also observed

Again:

you DID NOT PREFACE your quote with where it came from:

A review of available Greenland ice-core data is given by Alley (2000). The data were collected by two international teams of investigators from multiple laboratories.

AND

However, those records do not provide much spatial detail, nor do they sample the whole earth. For those, one must consider a global array of data sources of various types

You are cherry-picking from sources you do not understand.

p20005394g32001.jpg




LOCAL
 
Everything I've seen is that in the last 30 years there has been increasing awareness that drastic shifts have occurred in very short periods.

e.g. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises

Briefly, the data indicate that cooling into the Younger Dryas occurred in a few prominent decade(s)-long steps, whereas warming at the end of it occurred primarily in one especially large step of about 8°C in about 10 years

LOCAL: More than likely these are changes that occurred due to abrupt shifts in ocean currents.

Just like the UK/Europe will turn into a deep-freeze in a mere few years if the Gulf Stream shuts down.
 
No, give all of the subsidies currently given to fossil fuel industries to green twch industries. So what if we pay $8 per gallon for fuel, that will just force everyone off internal combustion engines quicker and cause a drop in electrics. Or, better yet, spur a development to reduce the energy cost of producing hydrogen or some other currently unforeseen energy base. Maybe a Tony Stark will emerge and come up with a real arc reactor.
Until there is a major scientific breakthrough in the fields of ''cold fusion'' and or ''room temperature'' superconductivity we will be tied to fossil fuels.
 
Until there is a major scientific breakthrough in the fields of ''cold fusion'' and or ''room temperature'' superconductivity we will be tied to fossil fuels.

Not at all

We have ample wind and solar availability to generate many times more energy than the world needs. The issue is battery tech and storage.

Thorium nuclear can also bridge that gap.

The actual problem we have is political.

FAR too many rich people and very rich regimes whose net worth falls to $0 once their fossil fuel reserves are unextractable. They will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.
 
Such climate oscillations have a characteristic form consisting of gradual cooling followed by more abrupt cooling, a cold interval, and finally an abrupt warming. Events were most commonly spaced about 1,500 years apart, although spacing of 3,000 or 4,500 years is also observed

The events are thousands of years apart, but the massive changes in temp have been observed over very short (abrupt, if you prefer) periods between the events.


Again:

you DID NOT PREFACE your quote with where it came from:

I proved the link, derpy. I'm not trying to hide anything.

If you clicked it you'd see this:

xzkwZz7.png


and could read this:

FIGURE 2.1 The Younger Dryas (YD) climate event, as recorded in an ice core from central Greenland and a sediment core from offshore Venezuela.


Lose your readers? Need larger font? I'm here to help:

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?




So, in recap: global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more...
temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years
 
The events are thousands of years apart, but the massive changes in temp have been observed over very short (abrupt, if you prefer) periods between the events.




I proved the link, derpy. I'm not trying to hide anything.

If you clicked it you'd see this:

xzkwZz7.png


and could read this:

FIGURE 2.1 The Younger Dryas (YD) climate event, as recorded in an ice core from central Greenland and a sediment core from offshore Venezuela.



Lose your readers? Need larger font? I'm here to help:

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?




So, in recap: global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more...
temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years

Wrong: your section of the paper you've referred to is ONLY REGARDING LOCAL VARIATIONS. Mishmashing the generalized statement made on global does not alter this fact.

YOUR PLOTS ARE NOT GLOBAL

It states that explicitly
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Wrong: your section of the paper you've referred to is ONLY REGARDING LOCAL VARIATIONS. Mishmashing the generalized statement made on global does not alter this fact.

YOUR PLOTS ARE NOT GLOBAL

It states that explicitly
Have something that disputes this? If so, please share:

During the Pleistocene Epoch, extensive ice sheets and other glaciers formed repeatedly on large landmasses. The Younger Dryas, one of several very abrupt climatic changes that took place near the end of the late Pleistocene, was preceded by a sudden global warming interval beginning approximately 14,700 years ago. This interval, the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, saw the rapid retreat of the immense Pleistocene ice sheets. A second abrupt climatic warming event, approximately 11,600 years ago, marked the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of the Holocene Epoch (11,700 years ago to the present) and Earth’s modern climate.
In this second warming interval, average global temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.
 
I've already shown you your error.

Cherry picking sentences won't alter that reality.
If you have specific references which put a single sentence into context, then post them.
You've claimed I'm wrong. I'm just asking for your evidence to support the idea that abrupt climate change hasn't occurred over several degrees within a few years.
I keep finding evidence that shows the opposite of what you want me to believe.

You cherry picked one word, local, where it was talking about the most extreme incidence, and then ignored the references to global, which discussed a multi degree change in as short as a decade.

Are you an abrupt climate change denier?
 
You've claimed I'm wrong. I'm just asking for your evidence to support the idea that abrupt climate change hasn't occurred over several degrees within a few years.
You've posted simple sentences, not actual references.

The first ones you pushed out were for TWO LOCAL AREAS and the citation even states that. I posted their graphic which points that out to you.

If you cannot read, I cannot help you here.
 
You've posted simple sentences, not actual references.

The first ones you pushed out were for TWO LOCAL AREAS and the citation even states that. I posted their graphic which points that out to you.

If you cannot read, I cannot help you here.
Are you an abrupt climate change denier?

Do you have any evidence you can point me to that contradicts the information I readily find on the subject?

During the Pleistocene Epoch, extensive ice sheets and other glaciers formed repeatedly on large landmasses. The Younger Dryas, one of several very abrupt climatic changes that took place near the end of the late Pleistocene, was preceded by a sudden global warming interval beginning approximately 14,700 years ago. This interval, the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, saw the rapid retreat of the immense Pleistocene ice sheets. A second abrupt climatic warming event, approximately 11,600 years ago, marked the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of the Holocene Epoch (11,700 years ago to the present) and Earth’s modern climate. In this second warming interval, average global temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Younger-Dryas-climate-interval

The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10°C (18°F) in a decade (Alley 2000). Other proxy records, including varved lake sediments in Europe, also display these abrupt shifts (Brauer et al. 2008).
The Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The Younger Dryas


I'd like to read something that supports your assertion that NOAA is wrong about this subject.
 
Are you an abrupt climate change denier?

Do you have any evidence you can point me to that contradicts the information I readily find on the subject?


I'd like to read something that supports your assertion that NOAA is wrong about this subject.
I'd like actual references. Not "soundbites" out of context like you'd already posted and I'd disproven for you.

Like THIS:

Although the onset and termination are synchronous across the records, tropical hydroclimate changes are more gradual (>100 years) than the abrupt (10–100 years) temperature changes in the northern Atlantic Ocean. The abrupt recovery of Greenland temperatures likely reflects changes in regional sea ice extent.



Details like that MATTER when you're discussing these things.
 
Last edited:
I'd like actual references.
I'd like an actual answer to the question.

Are you an abrupt climate change denier?

Not "soundbites" out of context like you'd already posted and I'd disproven for you.

Disproven? NOAA points out the "Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world."

You assertions regarding "local" are refuted by the NOAA.
Show your evidence to the contrary.

If you cannot read, I cannot help you here.
 
ADVERTISEMENT