KaiserJeep wrote:
The implication being: If human activity is increasing global temperatures, the outside bound for the healing period when FF combustion ends may be on the order of 100,000 years.
KaiserJeep wrote:The implication being: If human activity is increasing global temperatures, the outside bound for the healing period when FF combustion ends may be on the order of 100,000 years.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
That assumes no man made solutions, such as active technology based solutions already being researched and develop could be brought into play.
KaiserJeep wrote:Plant, that "conventional wisdom" is exactly what the new information from the fossil record contradicts. While I understand that the world of 65 million years ago, and the mechanisms of carbon release then versus today are very different, the new information suggests that the healing period is "on the order of" 100,000 years. That means it is unlikely to be less than 10,000 years, and also unlikely to be more than 999,999 years.
The idea would be confirmed or disproved by other fossil isotope studies, which have not yet occurred. After all, there is NO SUCH THING as "settled Science" when it comes to the Theory of AGW.
Plantagenet wrote:KaiserJeep wrote:Plant, that "conventional wisdom" is exactly what the new information from the fossil record contradicts. While I understand that the world of 65 million years ago, and the mechanisms of carbon release then versus today are very different, the new information suggests that the healing period is "on the order of" 100,000 years. That means it is unlikely to be less than 10,000 years, and also unlikely to be more than 999,999 years.
The idea would be confirmed or disproved by other fossil isotope studies, which have not yet occurred. After all, there is NO SUCH THING as "settled Science" when it comes to the Theory of AGW.
Its a very interesting scientific study, but I always put more weight on studies on modern processes and recent geologic events then I do on studies from the distant past because we know far far far more about the way modern processes operate then we do about the distant past. In particular, the exact timing and duration of things that happened 65 million years ago is very difficult to determine. Radiometric dating methods used for rocks that old always have an "error" and this error will be much larger than the entire 100,000 year interval that is purportedly being dated. Unfortunately the news article in the citation doesn't actually describe how the timing of the 100,000 year long interval in the study was supposedly determined. Maybe someone has a link to the actual paper in SCIENCE?
Cheers!
Abstract
Greenhouse warming is a predicted consequence of the Chicxulub impact, but supporting data are sparse. This shortcoming compromises understanding of the impact’s effects, and it has persisted due to an absence of sections that both contain suitable material for traditional carbonate-based or organic-based paleothermometry and are complete and expanded enough to resolve changes on short time scales. We address the problem by analyzing the oxygen isotopic composition of fish debris, phosphatic microfossils that are relatively resistant to diagenetic alteration, from the Global Stratotype Section and Point for the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary at El Kef, Tunisia. We report an ~1‰ decrease in δ18O values (~5°C warming) beginning at the boundary and spanning ~300 cm of section (~100,000 years). The pattern found matches expectations for impact-initiated greenhouse warming.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests