Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Miocene Anthropocene Future

Moderator: Tanada

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Revi » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 07:58:19

We've been keeping accurate records since 1850, and that would mean that roughly we would have 2 record highs per year, and 2 record lows. Last year we had 10 record highs and no record lows in Portland, Maine. I'm pretty sure it was around the same everywhere. We have already experienced the three hottest years since record keeping started. They were 2014, 2015 and 2016. The consequences have begun.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6776
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 12:06:38

Revi wrote:We've been keeping accurate records since 1850, and that would mean that roughly we would have 2 record highs per year, and 2 record lows. Last year we had 10 record highs and no record lows in Portland, Maine. I'm pretty sure it was around the same everywhere. We have already experienced the three hottest years since record keeping started. They were 2014, 2015 and 2016. The consequences have begun.


The idea that we have kept accurate records of global temperatures since 1850 is laughable. Global atmospheric temperatures have only been measured since the 1950's using weather balloons, and 1979 when we developed Earth-facing satellites that can measure infrared radiation from all of the visible hemisphere. Data before then are estimates, averages of a few hundred surface thermometer readings, made from surface weather instruments most of which were located in human cities steadily growing in size and suffering urban heat island effects. Your statements above are nonsensical. Unless perhaps you know of satellite measurements or weather balloon data from 1850?

The satellite data - which are in fact direct measurements of mid-troposhere temperatures - have long been disputed because they do not show a warming trend anywhere as intense as suspect climate models based on suspect surface temperature data.
Image

The directly observed temperature datasets which do in fact show excellant correspondance (98%) to the satellite data are the mid troposphere readings from weather balloons:
Image
Charts are from: http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/02/05/satellites-and-global-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/

Understand that your delusion of global warming above and beyond that expected from the continuing withdrawal from the Ice Age which lasted from 19,000 BC to 9,500 BC is a psychological disfunction phenomenon known as "Groupthink".
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 12:44:17

KaiserJeep wrote:
The satellite data - which are in fact direct measurements of mid-troposhere temperatures - have long been disputed because they do not show a warming trend anywhere as intense as suspect climate models based on suspect surface temperature data.


People don't live at 30,000-50,000' elevation in the mid-troposphere. People live on the surface of the earth.

Its certainly interesting that satellites don't show much warming in the upper atmosphere, but it doesn't change the fact that other measurements taken at the surface of the earth do show warming at the surface of the earth. Its pretty clear by now that (GCMs do a poor job and predict too much warming in the upper atmosphere, just like they do a poor job and predict insufficient sea ice melting in the Arctic Ocean. However, the overall physics remain incontrovertible---CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding it to the atmosphere by combusting fossil fuels inexorably warms the planet.

Image
The surface of the earth is warming due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 13:31:51

Satellites actually measure the Earth's radience at specific wavelengths. Those most applicable to deriving temperatures are various infrared wavelengths associated with oxygen. Satellites do measure surface temperatures of sea water, where the albedo is fairly constant and albedo variations easily modelled. Over land, the calculation is more involved due to albedo variations.

Image

In fact, the troposphere (defined as surface to +30,000' at the poles, or to 56,000' at the equator) is where virtually all weather phenomena occur and where most GHG absorption occurs.

Firstly, almost all the GHG emissions are due to biomass decay, the slow oxygenation of former living organisms. Mostly (about 99%) bacteria:
Image
Which is pretty unavoidable. But if you concentrate on the 1% biomass attributed to animals:
Image
...most is our food animals.

Only 17% of the total human-caused emissions are due to burning FF's. It's a vanishingly small contribution, compared to our cows, pigs, sheep, goats, and chickens.

Speaking of GHG's, atmospheric methane absorbs 269X as much heat as carbon dioxide, but because it is less persistent than carbon dioxide, is overall only about 80X as potent a GHG. The total carbon emmitted into our atmosphere, both natural and that caused by burning FF's, accounts for only 17% of the greenhouse effect. 51% is due to our livestock, both methane and carbon dioxide. The remainder is almost all caused by human body emissions of GHG's, including carbon dioxide and methane. The tiny few percent left is the shrinking contributoin of wild animals.

Try again.
Last edited by KaiserJeep on Thu 01 Jun 2017, 14:29:37, edited 1 time in total.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 14:14:03

kj is hawking a very old and long-ago-debunked myth here. I try not to feed trolls, but for anyone interested in facts, they could start here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Satell ... meters.htm
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16603
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 14:22:15

dohboi wrote:kj is hawking a very old and long-ago-debunked myth here. I try not to feed trolls, but for anyone interested in facts, they could start here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Satell ... meters.htm


The reference doesn't clear up who declared a geologic name that doesn't even exist. Any chance we could discuss stuff that isn't just being made up randomly because someone has an urge?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 14:27:53

?

I would ask what the hell you are talking about, but I just remembered...I don't really give a damn. :-D :-D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAqxWa9Rbe0
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16603
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 14:54:10

dohboi wrote:?

I would ask what the hell you are talking about, but I just remembered...I don't really give a damn. :-D :-D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAqxWa9Rbe0


There is no Anthropocene epoch. This isn't hard you know..the geologists who name these things either name them, or they do not. Difficult to understand for zealots, I know, but it does give you a firm understanding why the geologists responsible for such naming don't jump on some idiot neophytes band wagon....they are busy, the same way as you. Can't let reality get in the way of good doomer porn, even if it can't be peak oil.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 17:13:38

AdamB wrote:
There is no Anthropocene epoch.


Not yet.

The proposal is still pending. The Working Group on the Anthropocene (WGA) voted to formally designate a new epoch designated the Anthropocene and presented this recommendation to the International Geological Congress on 29 August 2016.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 17:24:11

The 35th annual International Geological Congress officially declared us in the Anthropocene last August.

Anthropocene Epoch declared real; 35th International Geological Congress ends 7 year deliberation.
AWG Vote (35 members):
1.Is the Anthropocene stratigraphically real? For: 34, Against: 0, Abstain: 1
2.Should the Anthropocene be formalised? For:30, Against: 3, Abstain: 2
3.Hierarchical level of the Anthropocene? Era: 2, Period: 1.5, Epoch: 20.5, Sub-epoch: 1, Age: 2, Sub-age: 0, None: 1, Uncertain: 3, Abstain: 4
4.Base/beginning of the Anthropocene? ~7ka: 0, ~3ka: 1.3, 1610 Orbis: 0, ~1800: 0, ~1950: 28.3, ~1964: 1.3, Diachronous: 4, Uncertain: 0, Abstain: 0
5.GSSA .v. GSSP? GSSP: 25.5, GSSA: 1.5, Uncertain: 8
6.What is the Primary Signal? aluminium: 0, plastic: 3, fuel ash particles: 2, carbon dioxide concentration: 3, methane concentration: 0, carbon isotope change: 2, oxygen isotope change: 0, radiocarbon bomb spike: 4, Plutonium fallout: 10, Nitrate concentration / nitrogen isotope change: 0, Biostratigraphic: extinction/ assemblage change: 0, Other (lead, persistent organic pollutants, technofossils): 3, Uncertain: 2, Abstain: 6.

All but one of the AWG’s 35 members agree that the Anthropocene is “stratigraphically real” (one abstained) and 30 agree (2 opposed, 3 abstentions) that the new epoch should be formally added to the Geological Time Scale.

link

Note the primary signal was Plutonium Fallout, with fuel ash particles a close second.

Yes, Plant is technically correct, that the full International Congress has not voted, but it is all but a done deal.

Seems AdamB doesn't like the vote and would rather misrepresent it. How does that not surprise me.
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Thu 01 Jun 2017, 17:49:03, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 17:45:43

The 35th annual International Geological Congress officially declared us in the Anthropocene last August.


Sorry the AWG does not have that authority. The authority to designate changes to the stratigraphic code falls to the International Commission on Stratigraphy. AWG was trying to push through the idea that social sciences needed to be accepted as criteria for designating Anthropocene as an official Epoch. This appeared in a publication submitted to Nature in December of 2016 and published in January of 2017.

Ellis, E. et al, 2017. Involve social scientists in defining the Anthropocene. Nature 540, doi:10.1038/540192a

A subsequent paper pointed out that Ellis was mistaken, the AWG did not have the power they think they did and that it all comes down to decisions made by the subcommission on Quaternary stratigraphy of the International Commission on Stratigraphy.

Zalasiewicz, J, et al, 2017. Anthropocene: its stratigraphic basis. Nature 541, doi:10.1038/541289b

Anthropocene: its stratigraphic basis As officers of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG; J.Z. and C.W.) and chair of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS; M.J.H.) of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), we note that the AWG has less power than Erle Ellis and colleagues imply (Nature 540, 192–193; 2016). Its role is merely advisory — to evaluate the Anthropocene as a formal unit in the geological timescale. Proposals must pass scrutiny by the AWG, the SQS and the ICS before being ratified by the Executive Committee of the International Union of Geological Sciences. The geological Anthropocene is not defined by holistic analysis of all human impacts on Earth, but by whether those impacts have produced suitable signals in the stratal record. Requirements include uniqueness, global extent, preservation potential and a synchronous base. A putative geological Anthropocene epoch would be nested within the Quaternary period, Cenozoic era and Phanerozoic eon. Myriad near-synchronous geological signatures in the stratigraphic record place its logical beginning in the mid-twentieth century, during the ‘Great Acceleration’ that marked a global increase in population, industrial activity and energy use. The ‘anthropogenic’ epoch of Ellis et al. is different, and obscures this major Earth system and stratigraphic change. By including all human impacts across the world over millennia, their Anthropocene extends diachronously through the Late Pleistocene and Holocene to the present day. This overlap makes it meaningless as a geological timescale unit. The rich archaeological record, furthermore, is a characteristic of
the Holocene epoch. The AWG is interdisciplinary, with representatives from geology, archaeology, history, soil science, ecology, oceanography, polar science, atmospheric chemistry and international law. It works with physical scientists, social scientists, humanists and artists. It publicizes its activities through open meetings and peer-reviewed literature, and invites feedback. Ongoing work to conceptualize the geological Anthropocene must nonetheless remain within the ICS mandate
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5416
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 17:55:57

Oh, of course, RockDoc has to jump in and pretend that the working group will be ignored, or the International Congress will even vote against their almost unanimous conclusion.

They didn't set up the working group, that spent 7 years deliberating, just to dismiss their almost unanimous conclusion. (1 abstention, none opposed)

How stupid does he think people on here are? :roll:
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 18:01:15

Geologists can be p r e t t y stupid.

Sorry, I'm a geophysicist so I couldn't resist.

We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out when it comes up for its final vote. The Code of Stratigraphic Nomenclature is one of the most boring things on earth, but it is relevant here.

Nonetheless, I think the meaning of the word "Anthropocene is reasonably clear and is now in popular usage. We can continue to use the term here simply in the sense of meaning we are now living in a "human-influenced" global environment that encompasses the recent past and the future even it is not yet the name of an officially designated geologic Epoch.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 18:04:35

Yes, I didn't mean how stupid are the Choir he is Preaching to. We already know the answer to that. I meant the majority of us. :lol:
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 18:41:18

They didn't set up the working group, that spent 7 years deliberating, just to dismiss their almost unanimous conclusion. (1 abstention, none opposed)

How stupid does he think people on here are? :roll:


well apparently you are stupid enough that you didn't read who the authors of the paper I mentioned and you are also stupid enough to claim that AWG vote meant there was an official decision made.

Zalasiewicz, J, et al, 2017. Anthropocene: its stratigraphic basis. Nature 541, doi:10.1038/541289b

Jan Zalasiewicz and Colin Waters are officers of the AWG and Martin Head is the chair of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. If anyone would know what power the AWG has in instigating change to the stratigraphic code they would. This is a geologic issue....in order to be recognized as a formal unit in the geologic timescale it must appear in the stratigraphic record with requirements which include " uniqueness, global extent, preservation potential and a synchronous base". The authors of the paper I just pointed to (who actually know a bit more than you do about the process given they are involved in it) have already pointed out that there is no way the AWG proposal of an epoch spanning the Pleistocene and Holocene is a non-starter. What the ICS is reviewing now is to what extent the period since 1950 meets all the requirements in the stratigraphic code to be named an Epoch. That will be done with consideration of what the AWG has stated and I would point out that previous decisions to change the geologic timescale have taken many years to be approved. As an example the work to include "Quaternary" as a formal unit within the timescale began in 1985 and did not reach final vote in the commission until 2006. So don't hold your breath.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5416
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 19:11:52

Blah, Blah, Blah - What I didn't read was your reply.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 19:16:40

rockdoc123 wrote:I would point out that previous decisions to change the geologic timescale have taken many years to be approved. As an example the work to include "Quaternary" as a formal unit within the timescale began in 1985 and did not reach final vote in the commission until 2006. So don't hold your breath.


This is all a bit of a red herring.

It isn't necessary for the term "anthropocene" to attain the lofty status of being an officially approved Epoch before people can use the word anthropocene. The word anthropocene is already a term in general use. The word has appeared in respected publications like NATURE and the New York Times and now appears in numerous scientific papers and abstracts, and also is defined in dictionaries. It even appears in Wikipedia, the final arbiter of truth.

I suggest we just carry on as before using the term Anthropocene in our discussions, just like the rest of the world is doing.

Image

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 19:35:11

Yes Cid....demonstrate your lack of understanding further

For those interested in the process and a clear message that this is definitely not a fait a compli the following paper last year

Finney, S.C. and Edwards, L.E. 2016, The Antrhopocene epoch: Scientific decision or political statement? GAS TODAY, V 26, 3, pp 4 -10

Note that Finney is the Chair of the International Commission on Stratigraphy and Edwards is the Commissioner, North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature. In other words two members of the ICS who will be making the decision.

The proposal for the “Anthropocene” epoch as a formal unit of the geologic time scale has received extensive attention in scientific and public media. However, most articles on the Anthropocene misrepresent the nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart, which is produced by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and serves as the basis for the geologic time scale. The stratigraphic record of the Anthropocene is minimal, especially with its recently proposed beginning in 1945; it is that of a human lifespan, and that definition relegates considerable anthropogenic change to a “pre-Anthropocene.” The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.


One other important point made by the authors is that because there has been such a short interval from 1945 to present there is very little in the way of preserved sedimentary record of any thickness that can be used as support for the argument.

In the paper the authors further point out the process....lots of additional work to prove up issues and discuss amongst the 20 voting member countries of the ICS. It is pretty clear this is not a done deal. And further it then has to go to the Executive Committee of the International Union of Geological Sciences for a vote in order to become official. I've read somewhere that it could take another 4-5 years to assemble the technical data in support of the AGW recommendation from vote which is necessary before the ICS will even begin their debate.

It isn't necessary for the term "anthropocene" to attain the lofty status of being an officially approved Epoch before people can use the word anthropocene.


Of course that is a possibility and one that is recommended by a host of stratigraphers who recognize the problem with a formal identification. The problem you face now is what is the proper defintion for it? What time frame etc. As Finner and Edwards point out this is more a political decision than a scientific one.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5416
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 21:55:42

rd and ab seem to be wearing their political correctness panties today, tsking people about using words that they deem to be not properly 'correct' according to their warped and deranged visions of the world.

I doubt that their version of PC is going to work any better than any others, but it is certainly far more obnoxious than most other versions.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16603
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Miocene Anthropocene Future

Unread postby Cog » Thu 01 Jun 2017, 22:39:20

I do not remember stratigraphy being so filled with drama when I took it in college forty years ago. Good to know those crusty old geologists can have a good time arguing the finer points of naming rock layers.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9319
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests