Global Climate Status Report

babe

Well-Known Member
So, overall....

We have some good satellite data, dedicated resources in use, and the ability to track changes over time with pretty good resolution and frequency. We would be able to "see" an underwater volcanic eruption of a fairly small scale with observing an anomalous "hot spot" where a convection current brings the heat to the surface.

We have virtually no instruments in place for tracking deep sea temps, particularly below 300m depth.

We have absolutely no instruments in place for tracking changes in deep well earth temps or heat flux. We have no clue about changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the oceans, where most of our "free" carbon exists.

summary.....

we just don't know what the hell is happening to our planet, really. Or to our climate.

But there are a lot of hot head trendy charlatans predicting doom, claiming we gotta change our political and economic civilization and go to hell like Venezuela.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
So, looking at the global SST products being offered, a year ago, I was babbling about warm oceans globally, wondering if there is "deep sea" trend supporting it, or if it's all CO2 and solar cycles. Rapid polar ice melt is capable of driving the SST anomalies..... affecting salt mixing currents, cold freshwater currents coming out of the Bering Strait or or Norwegian Sea.

El Nino/La Nina weather cycles are fairly well-known, but other weather oscillations occur which large power to affect weather on patterns that exist for weeks or months or even years. Most of these are actually phenomena of ocean mixing currents.

Areas of rising currents give colder SSTs. In times of "winter", the change in heat absorption in a region will regularly affect SSts. Polar ice in the Arctic is one very major factor.

Most oscillations in weather patterns have self-limiting factors. Storms forming over warm seas, like Hurricans, will reduce SSTs by some degrees. The typical hurricane will drop SST a couple of degrees short-term and reduce the chance of another storm strengthening in the same place.

An overall world change in SST of 1 C is really awesomely huge in terms of impacts on clamate.

And that is about what we have now.

But change in the ambient atmospheric CO2 is pretty slow, and we've "been here before" many times. In fact in Earth History, we are near the all-time low in CO2, at a level that should be considered catastrophic and could be argued to be something we should try to increase, even. Plant life is experiencing a carbon desert climate, which is being healed by more CO2, if anything.

We were just stupid in the first place, building cities under geologic norms for sea boundaries.....

Thinking our inter-glacial warm climate is something that will never change.

Trying to fight cycles on this scale is ridiculously stupid. We should just figure on adapting.
 
Last edited:

Heathme

Guest
I think you're over the top on this.

And @Heathme Please don't spam this thread with political crap. I wanted a place to actually collect information and discuss the facts.
I'll post whatever I like, thanks. And just so we're clear, "climate change" is nothing but politics.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
I'll post whatever I like, thanks. And just so we're clear, "climate change" is nothing but politics.
While I'm not a mod, or a "Dammod" if that's you're idea of house rules, I'll also post whatever I like.

You're spamming this thread, and I'll report it until the mods come home.

you give conservatives a bad name, you're as bad as any "woke" advocate for global cartelism based on fake science.

People who hijack the claims of "science" either left or right or whatever, are the problem more than any perceived, or real, crisis in the natural world that humans have, or can, cause.

Science is a method for examining our beliefs about the objective reality of the world we live in. It requires non-partisan and unbiased discipline, or it's not "Science".
 
Last edited:

babe

Well-Known Member
Tell it to the people living in the Arctic. Would you be able to actually say that to them? Do these people not even exist in your world?

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...cale-and-alaska-crab-pots-are-pulling-up-cod/
So I read most of this article. Care to have a discussion about presumption and bias in interpreting the world?

Some "deniers"..... a term when used immediately reveals a deranged human whose intolerance has gone beyond the bounds of human decency.... just don't think the sea temps or air temps are in any kind of "climatic" shift from the "normal" we have known.... at least in view of the one or two hundred years of human measurements available.

People who use the hateful term "deniers" are denying the right of human belief, human opinion, human speech, and freedoms like religion and political action, equal treatment under the laws, and access to information. I mean, I see people whose advocacy has gone intolerant, really. People who will employ the force of government in their cause to put people in jail or kill them for having a differing belief. Such people, historically, have filled the ranks of various political regimes which have done great crimes against humanity. I'd include religious zealots who ever employed government force in their causes, but also modern idealists, morons really, like Nazis and Commies.

Global cartelism is not such a great cause you should support it with your credulity, bro.

Heathme wants to make this thread political. I'm willing to minimize the political aspects or uses of the subject, if others will help keep it more objective,

No doubt there is a lot of financial interest buying up space in this controversy, driving this issue. No doubt governments have politicized it and financed biased "research". But still, we are getting some data that is interesting to me, and relevant to eventually understanding this world and it's natural processes like heat balance and geology and all kinds of life dependent on the conditions and resources of the time.

What proponents of political causes like the publishers of your article fail to understand or consider relevant, is the probability that human activity may not be the only factor driving changes we see. From a thermodynamic or scientific point of view, carbon dioxide and other polyatomic molecules in our atmosphere will undeniably have different physical properties regarding radiation absorption, emission, and heat reservoir capacities. In terms of earth history, geologic scale changes..... we had an original atmosphere that was almost all CO2. What happened to that?

We have thousands of feet of "Precambrian" carbonate deposits around the world, in continental land masses. All of it was chemically deposited on ocean floors at some point in time. Every ocean floor is a currently accumulating carbonate deposit that is limited by concentrations of carbon dioxide and mineral ions like Calcium and Magnesium. If we pollute our air, almost all of that goes to the oceans. No one is measuring rates of carbonate deposition anywhere on planet earth. Without that measurement, we are all idiots waving our arms and screaming senselessly at the cosmos. We can calculate all our burning til the cows come home, but we know nothing about carbon dioxide.

If we emit acidic fumes like NOx or SO2, they will dissolve into rain water, erode some rock or soil minerals and carry the salts to the sea.

Photosynthesis has contributed to the removal of carbon dioxide from our primordial stmosphere. carbonate and plant residues are a huge "carbon sink" that is only slowly reversible. I think the "shelf life" of wood or grass on the earth surface is on average about ten years. More for forests. Carbonatge deposits are permanent, except for acid dissolution or volcanic actions. Carbonates lose CO2 at around 150 C, so if you heat up cement, cinder blocks, or rock it goes to oxide powders and gas CO2.

I find "scientists" expressing ignorant and false projections of climate based on simple equations that fail to accurately estimate the sequestration processes pretty embarassing, but our government loves them and pays them huge salaries to spread their ignorant gospel.

However, I was told fifty years ago that our atmosphere was 0.04% CO2, and I used that estimate in chemical calculations. I measured it, collecting CO2 in oxide filters and then precipitating and measuring the calcium carbonate. Now I'm told, it was only 0.03% then, but has now increased to 0.04%. 300 ppm ot 400 ppm in fifty years. Has the ocean carbonate concentration changed? How much CO2 is in the ocean?

In reading a recent scientific, peer-reviewed report, the authors found much more CO2 outgassing in the Southern Ocean than they expected, by a factor of 4, and the authors went so far as to state that more study needs to be done before we just assume our atmospheric carbon dioxide is even predominantly anthropogenic. Did this make the Seattle Times. or CNN? No. It's just being ignored. Nobody wants to talk about it.

So if our oceans are warming up for any reason, there's thousands of times more carbon dioxide in our oceans than in our air, and the outgassing could be nothing to do with us.

For some time, in this thread, I've talked about and dragged in links about internal earth heat processes that could be changing naturally, due to cyclical or linear models of nuclear reactions driven by movements of materials in the fluid phases of the inner earth, driven by releases of neutrons from fission and other nuclear reactions sometimes, loosely, termed "LENR", or "not so hot nuclear reactions".

It has long been known that the Earth emanates a certain amount of helium, particularly one isotope of helium, that is measured routinely as a tool for oil exploration. That Helium comes from LENR reactions..... fusion of hydrogen occuring in crystals of metal under great heat and pressure.

We now have an instrument that can track in real time subatomic particle emissions of a form that goes through mass, which can be correlated to the sum of Earth's fission reactions internally. LENR reactions are thought to require "loading" or accumulation over time of hydrogen within the crystal lattices of metals. I read one account in a peer-reviewed publication, that for some reason speculated that these reactions did not occur at all within the earth until the Earth core cooled to a certain point where under pressure, the iron crystals could form and begin to absorb the loose hydrogen.... Accordingly, it is possible that we will be getting significant increases in nuclear heat generation, to a point. While the supply of hydrogen lasts, while the conditions are right for the crystals to load the hydrogen. It could give a long-range.... million year or more.... cycle of heating that could raise our ocean temps a degree or two, heating from the ocean floor and volcanic vents....

In a hundred or more ways, we are moving forward in science towards actually being able to track changes in our situation and in our climate. I don't think we should be in any kind of panic. Whatever our point and direction of change, we should focus our resources on understanding and adapting, not on forcing our civilization on a particular social path. The issue of climate change is being used politically as tool for division, for pitting little people against one another and generating hate.

The employment of any kind of issue to divide the populace and stir up contention has been seen as a tool for "progressives", or any kind of Marxist-inspired political manipulation. Books have been written on how to exploit issues politically. Today, "Climate Change", while a real issue in "Science" so far as facts can be relevant, is the tool of choice for global cartelists who want to socialize the mass of humanity while exploiting the Earth's resources through government-controlled monopoly operations for themselves.

We will likely have real answers to the issues in a few years. Most likely, rather than stopping our fuel uses entirely, we will begin harvesting CO2 emissions and using them like fertizer in aquaponic farms or other modern farming designs, to double or triple crops.

So much for just being pigs with smokestacks.

But even released carbon will directly increase photosynthesis from algae not just on Bering ice shelfs. but throughout the whole of earth's oceans, if there is indeed an increase in oceanic CO2 for any reason. An increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm, if real, should mean a proportional increase in timber growth, grass growth, and crop yields worldwide.

I'd say the changes in sea catches is likely from more than just temps. Bottom feeders, huh? because of more garbage going into the sea, as well as less ice. Drops in the catch? Likely over fishing the resource, too.

I'm really pretty bad at free-association creative imagination exercises, but the Seattle Times has probably out-done me on this one, @Red
 
Last edited:

Red

Well-Known Member
So I read most of this article. Care to have a discussion about presumption and bias in interpreting the world?

Some "deniers"..... a term when used immediately reveals a deranged human whose intolerance has gone beyond the bounds of human decency.... just don't think the sea temps or air temps are in any kind of "climatic" shift from the "normal" we have known.... at least in view of the one or two hundred years of human measurements available.

People who use the hateful term "deniers" are denying the right of human belief, human opinion, human speech, and freedoms like religion and political action, equal treatment under the laws, and access to information. I mean, I see people whose advocacy has gone intolerant, really. People who will employ the force of government in their cause to put people in jail or kill them for having a differing belief. Such people, historically, have filled the ranks of various political regimes which have done great crimes against humanity. I'd include religious zealots who ever employed government force in their causes, but also modern idealists, morons really, like Nazis and Commies.

Global cartelism is not such a great cause you should support it with your credulity, bro.

Heathme wants to make this thread political. I'm willing to minimize the political aspects or uses of the subject, if others will help keep it more objective,

No doubt there is a lot of financial interest buying up space in this controversy, driving this issue. No doubt governments have politicized it and financed biased "research". But still, we are getting some data that is interesting to me, and relevant to eventually understanding this world and it's natural processes like heat balance and geology and all kinds of life dependent on the conditions and resources of the time.

What proponents of political causes like the publishers of your article fail to understand or consider relevant, is the probability that human activity may not be the only factor driving changes we see. From a thermodynamic or scientific point of view, carbon dioxide and other polyatomic molecules in our atmosphere will undeniably have different physical properties regarding radiation absorption, emission, and heat reservoir capacities. In terms of earth history, geologic scale changes..... we had an original atmosphere that was almost all CO2. What happened to that?

We have thousands of feet of "Precambrian" carbonate deposits around the world, in continental land masses. All of it was chemically deposited on ocean floors at some point in time. Every ocean floor is a currently accumulating carbonate deposit that is limited by concentrations of carbon dioxide and mineral ions like Calcium and Magnesium. If we pollute our air, almost all of that goes to the oceans. No one is measuring rates of carbonate deposition anywhere on planet earth. Without that measurement, we are all idiots waving our arms and screaming senselessly at the cosmos. We can calculate all our burning til the cows come home, but we know nothing about carbon dioxide.

If we emit acidic fumes like NOx or SO2, they will dissolve into rain water, erode some rock or soil minerals and carry the salts to the sea.

Photosynthesis has contributed to the removal of carbon dioxide from our primordial stmosphere. carbonate and plant residues are a huge "carbon sink" that is only slowly reversible. I think the "shelf life" of wood or grass on the earth surface is on average about ten years. More for forests. Carbonatge deposits are permanent, except for acid dissolution or volcanic actions. Carbonates lose CO2 at around 150 C, so if you heat up cement, cinder blocks, or rock it goes to oxide powders and gas CO2.

I find "scientists" expressing ignorant and false projections of climate based on simple equations that fail to accurately estimate the sequestration processes pretty embarassing, but our government loves them and pays them huge salaries to spread their ignorant gospel.

However, I was told fifty years ago that our atmosphere was 0.04% CO2, and I used that estimate in chemical calculations. I measured it, collecting CO2 in oxide filters and then precipitating and measuring the calcium carbonate. Now I'm told, it was only 0.03% then, but has now increased to 0.04%. 300 ppm ot 400 ppm in fifty years. Has the ocean carbonate concentration changed? How much CO2 is in the ocean?

In reading a recent scientific, peer-reviewed report, the authors found much more CO2 outgassing in the Southern Ocean than they expected, by a factor of 4, and the authors went so far as to state that more study needs to be done before we just assume our atmospheric carbon dioxide is even predominantly anthropogenic. Did this make the Seattle Times. or CNN? No. It's just being ignored. Nobody wants to talk about it.

So if our oceans are warming up for any reason, there's thousands of times more carbon dioxide in our oceans than in our air, and the outgassing could be nothing to do with us.

For some time, in this thread, I've talked about and dragged in links about internal earth heat processes that could be changing naturally, due to cyclical or linear models of nuclear reactions driven by movements of materials in the fluid phases of the inner earth, driven by releases of neutrons from fission and other nuclear reactions sometimes, loosely, termed "LENR", or "not so hot nuclear reactions".

It has long been known that the Earth emanates a certain amount of helium, particularly one isotope of helium, that is measured routinely as a tool for oil exploration. That Helium comes from LENR reactions..... fusion of hydrogen occuring in crystals of metal under great heat and pressure.

We now have an instrument that can track in real time subatomic particle emissions of a form that goes through mass, which can be correlated to the sum of Earth's fission reactions internally. LENR reactions are thought to require "loading" or accumulation over time of hydrogen within the crystal lattices of metals. I read one account in a peer-reviewed publication, that for some reason speculated that these reactions did not occur at all within the earth until the Earth core cooled to a certain point where under pressure, the iron crystals could form and begin to absorb the loose hydrogen.... Accordingly, it is possible that we will be getting significant increases in nuclear heat generation, to a point. While the supply of hydrogen lasts, while the conditions are right for the crystals to load the hydrogen. It could give a long-range.... million year or more.... cycle of heating that could raise our ocean temps a degree or two, heating from the ocean floor and volcanic vents....

In a hundred or more ways, we are moving forward in science towards actually being able to track changes in our situation and in our climate. I don't think we should be in any kind of panic. Whatever our point and direction of change, we should focus our resources on understanding and adapting, not on forcing our civilization on a particular social path. The issue of climate change is being used politically as tool for division, for pitting little people against one another and generating hate.

The employment of any kind of issue to divide the populace and stir up contention has been seen as a tool for "progressives", or any kind of Marxist-inspired political manipulation. Books have been written on how to exploit issues politically. Today, "Climate Change", while a real issue in "Science" so far as facts can be relevant, is the tool of choice for global cartelists who want to socialize the mass of humanity while exploiting the Earth's resources through government-controlled monopoly operations for themselves.

We will likely have real answers to the issues in a few years. Most likely, rather than stopping our fuel uses entirely, we will begin harvesting CO2 emissions and using them like fertizer in aquaponic farms or other modern farming designs, to double or triple crops.

So much for just being pigs with smokestacks.

But even released carbon will directly increase photosynthesis from algae not just on Bering ice shelfs. but throughout the whole of earth's oceans, if there is indeed an increase in oceanic CO2 for any reason. An increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm, if real, should mean a proportional increase in timber growth, grass growth, and crop yields worldwide.

I'd say the changes in sea catches is likely from more than just temps. Bottom feeders, huh? because of more garbage going into the sea, as well as less ice. Drops in the catch? Likely over fishing the resource, too.

I'm really pretty bad at free-association creative imagination exercises, but the Seattle Times has probably out-done me on this one, @Red
Actually, I give you all the credit in the world for the time and effort you put into promoting your point of view. Just here, let alone any real work you may be engaged in in this area. And I can certainly do myself a favor avoiding this particular thread anyway. You're over my head with all this, and I'm sure you know that. I got out of geology just as the revolution known as plate tectonics was overthrowing the old views. In any case, I added some info from NOAA on the increase in extreme weather events, in the other climate thread. Not your thread. I didn't establish any restrictions on what could be posted to that thread, so feel free to tear it apart if you feel it needs to be. Or not.

I do know the Holocene is really just our most recent inter-glacial warming spell. I can't judge what you're saying here, but it would surprise me if you were right and the current thinking was all wrong.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
Science is a method for examining our beliefs about the objective reality of the world we live in. It requires non-partisan and unbiased discipline, or it's not "Science".
And who can argue with that?
 

SCS

Well-Known Member
The thing about climate change that bothers me is that a lot of people think (and some actually push the idea) that it's all human caused. And that's just asinine. The planet has been consistently warming up for thousands of years. Ever since the last Ice Age ended. Long before burning fossil fuels and humans were supposedly damaging the planet was a thing.

I do believe that humans have impacted the climate. But I seriously question how much. We don't understand the Earth's natural cycles of warming and cooling. That's a fact. To say things like "oh we've seen this many of the hottest years on record over the past decade" is hilarious to me. How long have we kept records? 150 years maybe? Do we realize how little data that is to go off of? It's an extremely small sample size.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
The thing about climate change that bothers me is that a lot of people think (and some actually push the idea) that it's all human caused. And that's just asinine. The planet has been consistently warming up for thousands of years. Ever since the last Ice Age ended. Long before burning fossil fuels and humans were supposedly damaging the planet was a thing.

I do believe that humans have impacted the climate. But I seriously question how much. We don't understand the Earth's natural cycles of warming and cooling. That's a fact. To say things like "oh we've seen this many of the hottest years on record over the past decade" is hilarious to me. How long have we kept records? 150 years maybe? Do we realize how little data that is to go off of? It's an extremely small sample size.
Pretty good take for a beginning on this subject.

The epoch of ice ages.... I need some damn textbook on geology and definitions under my elbows to speak specifically......has been generally portrayed as fairly recent in geologic time. Maybe six ice age cycles with relatively brief interglacial warm events of 10K plus or minus years. It is generally held that the temps are lower during ice ages, but I am trying to push a theory that goes the other way. The data from ice cores with some sort of principle of correlation or another, or from sediment cores with pollen counts or whatever, is always pushed to the idea that temps are lower during the ice events, so maybe I'm just not going to have any good reason to support the other idea.

But the temp scale is impressive. The temps given by the reports are generally 8-10 C or 15 F or so warmer during the low ice phase. I've seen and talked about a report, which I can't find from my computer..... that showed a very sharp spike in temps just before the ice event onset.

During ice melt periods, the temps regular go up and down across a range of 2 C plus or minus, which is greater than our current alarmist panic data shows..... so I wonder why the alarm. But hey, that guy with the polar rainforest gig a few links above made a chart to prove we're doing a thousand times more CO2 now than what he says caused the arctic rainforest event.

I've been to Wyoming and dug in the fossil beds, and found stuff myself. Petrified Palm Trees and ****.

But what I've never seen any science attempt to track..... is the history of the atmosphere from 5B ybp to now. ybp is my years before present time line. We obviously had an atmosphere with immense atmospheric pressures that consisted of mostly CO2. It was hot, very hot...so all the water was there, too.... so maybe I shouldn't say "mostly" CO2.

But all the oxygen was consumed in reactions with carbon and metals and stuff like silicon. We know this because the inner core has no oxides. And there is a sulfide layer in our earth crust where rather than oxides the elements are combined with sulfur instead. All of our oxygen in our air today got there by photosynthesis. So plants came first, as the fossil records show, even before fish. We had to cool off a bit to even get liquid jwater before even photosynthesis could get going., but the plants.... well simple cells plants.... started changing the atmosphere. and piling up debris containing reduced carbon compounds necessary for life like fish.

So we came to 400 ppm CO2 and maybe stabilized in that range, but certainly there were vast tracks of geologic time during the carboniferous ages where it was much higher. But hey, no ice ages. Ice ages stink, bro. Too damn cold. Life has to move.

At any rate, I am looking at the theory that it takes warm oceans to evaporate enough water to build the ice in higher lattitudes. Actually, it seems "Ice Ages" are mostly a Hudson Bay event. No such extreme buildups occur in Asia or Europe it seems. No "Great Lakes" built on glacial rubble beds in Russia. The Antarctic, I've read, has lakes and rivers under the ice, on some pretty impressive volcanic hot spots. Like Yellowstone in scale for heat flux. So the ice sorta rides out to sea on a layer of water undeneath.

So, at any rate, I liked Dr. Soon's talk, and the other guy, in the link above. These are the deplorable deniers the globalist cartel fascists have to scare you away from. So you'll buy carbon credits and socialism.....managed by themselves, for themselves of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCS

Red

Well-Known Member
@babe, Here's a new wrinkle that might be of interest.....


https://scitechdaily.com/mass-extinction-event-caused-by-erosion-of-the-ozone-layer/

"Researchers at the University of Southampton have shown that an extinction event 360 million years ago, that killed much of the Earth’s plant and freshwater aquatic life, was caused by a brief breakdown of the ozone layer that shields the Earth from damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation. This is a newly discovered extinction mechanism with profound implications for our warming world today....

.....Now, scientists have found evidence showing it was high levels of UV radiation which collapsed forest ecosystems and killed off many species of fish and tetrapods (our four-limbed ancestors) at the end of the Devonian geological period, 359 million years ago. This damaging burst of UV radiation occurred as part of one of the Earth’s climate cycles, rather than being caused by a huge volcanic eruption.

The ozone collapse occurred as the climate rapidly warmed following an intense ice age and the researchers suggest that the Earth today could reach comparable temperatures, possibly triggering a similar event. Their findings are published in the journal Science Advances.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/22/eaba0768.full

Abstract
There is an unexplained terrestrial mass extinction at the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary (359 million years ago). The discovery in east Greenland of malformed land plant spores demonstrates that the extinction was coincident with elevated UV-B radiation demonstrating ozone layer reduction. Mercury data through the extinction level prove that, unlike other mass extinctions, there were no planetary scale volcanic eruptions. Importantly, the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary terrestrial mass extinction was coincident with a major climatic warming that ended the intense final glacial cycle of the latest Devonian ice age. A mechanism for ozone layer reduction during rapid warming is increased convective transport of ClO. Hence, ozone loss during rapid warming is an inherent Earth system process with the unavoidable conclusion that we should be alert for such an eventuality in the future warming world.
 
Last edited:

babe

Well-Known Member
@babe, Here's a new wrinkle that might be of interest.....


https://scitechdaily.com/mass-extinction-event-caused-by-erosion-of-the-ozone-layer/

"Researchers at the University of Southampton have shown that an extinction event 360 million years ago, that killed much of the Earth’s plant and freshwater aquatic life, was caused by a brief breakdown of the ozone layer that shields the Earth from damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation. This is a newly discovered extinction mechanism with profound implications for our warming world today....

.....Now, scientists have found evidence showing it was high levels of UV radiation which collapsed forest ecosystems and killed off many species of fish and tetrapods (our four-limbed ancestors) at the end of the Devonian geological period, 359 million years ago. This damaging burst of UV radiation occurred as part of one of the Earth’s climate cycles, rather than being caused by a huge volcanic eruption.

The ozone collapse occurred as the climate rapidly warmed following an intense ice age and the researchers suggest that the Earth today could reach comparable temperatures, possibly triggering a similar event. Their findings are published in the journal Science Advances.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/22/eaba0768.full

Abstract
There is an unexplained terrestrial mass extinction at the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary (359 million years ago). The discovery in east Greenland of malformed land plant spores demonstrates that the extinction was coincident with elevated UV-B radiation demonstrating ozone layer reduction. Mercury data through the extinction level prove that, unlike other mass extinctions, there were no planetary scale volcanic eruptions. Importantly, the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary terrestrial mass extinction was coincident with a major climatic warming that ended the intense final glacial cycle of the latest Devonian ice age. A mechanism for ozone layer reduction during rapid warming is increased convective transport of ClO. Hence, ozone loss during rapid warming is an inherent Earth system process with the unavoidable conclusion that we should be alert for such an eventuality in the future warming world.
Lots we really don't know, and every sort of thing that can happen is worth thinking about a little.

The ozone is produced by uv radiation, as well as capable of absorbing it. Probably some specific uv radiation frequencies make all the difference. A natural equilibrium of reaction/reverse reaction with a higher energy product is generally caused... well shifted to the higher energy product side.... by abundant energy, and generally relaxes to normal with "normal" inputs. Whether it was heat from a warming event that caused it somehow without alteration in the solar inputs, or just plainly caused by a solar event is speculative.

I don't have the equations or data about how a "few" degrees changes in ambient atmospheric temps will change the ozone levels.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
I have a long standing interest in catastrophism, so I just thought this focus on a seldom considered extinction trigger was interesting. Particularly as it applies to asteroid impacts, catastrophism has really taken off in recent decades.
 

Douchebag K

Well-Known Member
I have a long standing interest in catastrophism, so I just thought this focus on a seldom considered extinction trigger was interesting. Particularly as it applies to asteroid impacts, catastrophism has really taken off in recent decades.
i'm all for the whole yellowstone supervolcano thing lol
 
Top