• Survival of the fittest is overrated. Join this week's AMA to find out why!

Earth barreling toward 'Hothouse' state not seen in 50 million years, epic new climate record shows

Sep 10, 2020
5
3
35
Hi, thanks for the important article. I wanted to point out the following two unit conversion errors:

1) 16 degrees Celsius = 28.8 degrees Fahrenheit (NOT "60 degrees Fahrenheit")
2) 4 degrees Celsius = 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (NOT "40 F")

(Note that we are talking about temperature differences. So each 1.0C = 1.8F in this context. )

Thanks
- - - - -
(Original article)
... For example, about 10 million years after the dinosaur extinction, Earth jumped from a warmhouse state to a hothouse state. This event, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, saw temperatures up to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above modern levels, Zachos said, and was driven by a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere, thought to be the result of huge volcanic eruptions in the North Atlantic. Similarly, as carbon dioxide disappeared from the atmosphere over the next 20 million years, ice sheets started to form in Antarctica and the planet entered a coolhouse phase, with surface temperatures averaging about 40 F (4 C) above modern levels. ...
 
Sep 10, 2020
1
2
15
Seems like the earth temp was barreling upward for thousands of years before humans established civilizations and pretty much stopped, moved downward during the last 8000 years. So in the last 40 or 50 it is bumping up again. I am much less convinced about anthropogenic climate change after seeing this chart, not more
 
Sep 10, 2020
1
1
10
Unquestionably (and as akirasunbear has already stated), there are errors in paragraph 9. Instead of saying "...60 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius)..." it should say "...28.8 degrees Fahrenheit...", and instead of "...40 F (4 C)..." it should say "...7.2 F (4 C)...".

I was going to email the link to this article to the students in my Physical Geography and Meteorology classes at a Southern California university, then I got to paragraph 9 and changed my mind. Pretty major error for a science website.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liam Lucas
Sep 11, 2020
1
1
10
Yes it looks like the writer got mixed up between acutal and difference. Errors is news articles are way to common, The writers take the abstracts which are often just ads for papers and run with the story. They never actual read the papers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liam Lucas
Sep 11, 2020
1
1
10
"Earth barreling toward 'Hothouse' state not seen in 50 million years, epic new climate record shows"

This is a very poor misleading title. The information is interesting but using the words the "Earth barreling" is just wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liam Lucas
Sep 11, 2020
2
1
10
Seems like the earth temp was barreling upward for thousands of years before humans established civilizations and pretty much stopped, moved downward during the last 8000 years. So in the last 40 or 50 it is bumping up again. I am much less convinced about anthropogenic climate change after seeing this chart, not more
Exactly. The text of the piece isn't at all backed up by the facts presented. It isn't CO2, it isn't you, its the sun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mickrussom
Sep 11, 2020
2
0
10
Exactly. The text of the piece isn't at all backed up by the facts presented. It isn't CO2, it isn't you, its the sun.
Dead wrong. The earth is supposed to be heading into the next ice age cycle. That has obviously been disrupted.
 
Sep 11, 2020
2
0
10
Seems like the earth temp was barreling upward for thousands of years before humans established civilizations and pretty much stopped, moved downward during the last 8000 years. So in the last 40 or 50 it is bumping up again. I am much less convinced about anthropogenic climate change after seeing this chart, not more
Well, you having a proper understanding is going to take more than just looking at a chart. The earth is supposed to be heading into the next ice age cycle.
 
Jan 16, 2020
12
8
35
I would be more inclined to believe the whole "Man is causing all global warming" if we had not had any volcanic activity since the Industrial Age started, or forest fires started by lightening strikes, or sunspots. When Mt. St. Helen's blew years ago, scientists said it dumped more chlorocarbons into the atmosphere than U.S. industries had in the previous 50 years. We have had a lot of volcanic activity since then, with more carbon dioxide and carbon compounds put into our air. The "blame Man for everything" crowd seems to ignore natural causes of climate change. They would rather blame industry for every problem we have. That's not necessarily entirely incorrect, since it's pretty obvious we are poisoning our environment in many ways, with plastics, coal ash, and chemicals in our food and water supplies, but climate change is not entirely our fault, and may not even be mostly our fault.
 

SFG

Sep 11, 2020
1
2
10
Unquestionably (and as akirasunbear has already stated), there are errors in paragraph 9. Instead of saying "...60 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius)..." it should say "...28.8 degrees Fahrenheit...", and instead of "...40 F (4 C)..." it should say "...7.2 F (4 C)...".

I was going to email the link to this article to the students in my Physical Geography and Meteorology classes at a Southern California university, then I got to paragraph 9 and changed my mind. Pretty major error for a science website.
Errors and finding them are an important part of science.

Articles with mistakes should be shared and help develop critical thinking.

Educators can set up challenges for finding mistakes and correcting them.
 
Feb 19, 2020
121
26
130
"Earth barreling toward 'Hothouse' state.." ? Over the last several hundred years the global mean temperature anomaly has risen only 0.75°C. From 14.0°C to 14.75°C. That is hardly "barreling" nor is it a "climate emergency." CO2 over that same period has risen ~48%. In the late Eocene CO2 was almost double today's value and there was no calamity. Life on land and in the oceans was doing just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mickrussom
Sep 11, 2020
2
1
10
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.

This article makes me less worried than ever about AGW - and no amount of voodoo tea leaves and chiken bones and blood and rain dances the leftists do at this point will make me worry more.

Want to clean things up? Build new, gen4+ nuclear power plants and work hard to make fusion happen. Everything else is just political crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doxiedad3
Jan 31, 2020
26
10
55
Ratwrangler
You are repeating denier nonsense. Human emissions of CO2 equal the total amount from Mt St. Helens every 2 1/2 hours.
The Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 was one of the three largest eruptions in the 20th century.
Human emissions of CO2 equal that from Mt Pinatubo every 12 hours

Human emissions of CO2 are 100 times that of all volcanic emissions combined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevin75025
Sep 11, 2020
2
1
10
Exactly. The text of the piece isn't at all backed up by the facts presented. It isn't CO2, it isn't you, its the sun.
How could it be the sun - its only the thing that puts _all_ the energy into the system.

I also like how albedo, clouds and water vapor are ignored and they go ape for CO2 - and these same clowns hate on nuclear power and dont care if fusion happens or not.
 
Jan 31, 2020
26
10
55
Seems like the earth temp was barreling upward for thousands of years before humans established civilizations and pretty much stopped, moved downward during the last 8000 years. So in the last 40 or 50 it is bumping up again. I am much less convinced about anthropogenic climate change after seeing this chart, not more
----------------------
You are wrong, sooooo wrong.
"seems like"?? How about facts?

The world is warming at least 10 times faster than when it came out of the last ice age.
It took 10,000 years to warm by 5 C. That averages 2,000 years for each 1 C warming.
Global average temperature has increased by 1 C in the last 140 years. Do the simple arithmetic. I got 16 times faster now.

And why is that? Because we are increasing CO2 at least 100 times faster than the fastest that nature has done in at least the last 450,000 years.


Humans increased CO2 by over 80ppm in 60 years
Humans increased CO2 by 130ppm in 140 years
------

Nature caused CO2 increases over the last 450,000 years, from ice core data

80ppm increase -- took 50,000 years
110ppm increase -- 25,000 years
120ppm increase --- 20,000 years
60ppm increase --- 20,000 years
90ppm increase --- 15,000 years
100ppm increase --- 24,800 years

The numbers for 800,000 years would be similar, based on a graph, from ice core data going back that far.
 
Jan 31, 2020
26
10
55
How could it be the sun - its only the thing that puts _all_ the energy into the system.

I also like how albedo, clouds and water vapor are ignored and they go ape for CO2 - and these same clowns hate on nuclear power and dont care if fusion happens or not.
-------------------------

NONE of those things are ignored. That is just denialist propaganda, also called LIES.
The Sun is NOT causing the warming. It helped the warming in the early 20th century, but not since then. Solar activity has declined since the 1950s, while about 2/3 of the warming since 1880 has happened. In fact the warming has accelerated since then, especially since 1980.

The science of the greenhouse gas effect says that there should be warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere.

That is exactly what has been observed. And that is a signature of the greenhouse effect, and NOT of Solar effect.
If the sun was the cause of the warming, both layers of the atmosphere would heat up.

If the sun was the cause of the warming, days would be warming more than nights. But what is being observed is nights warming more than days, which is what should happen if greenhouse gases are causing warming.
 
Jan 31, 2020
26
10
55
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.

This article makes me less worried than ever about AGW - and no amount of voodoo tea leaves and chiken bones and blood and rain dances the leftists do at this point will make me worry more.

Want to clean things up? Build new, gen4+ nuclear power plants and work hard to make fusion happen. Everything else is just political crap.
--------------

So why do you even bother coming to articles on Science, which you obviously know less than nothing about?
Yes CO2 was much higher hundreds of millions of years ago. And the Sun was several percent weaker than it is now. For example, about 300 million years ago, CO2 was even higher than during the Jurassic. And the Sun was so much weaker that it would have taken 3,000ppm CO2 just to keep the planet from being an iceball in space. You have no idea about the context of the time frames you are talking about.
The temperature then were far higher than anything humans evolved under.
 
Jan 31, 2020
26
10
55
A lot of very confused people commenting here.
They can thank the fossil fuels industry and their proxies for dis-informing them intentionally. A very well documented proven FACT.
---------

[QUOTE=" Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.[/QUOTE]

Every denier believes dozens if not hundreds of flat out lies and myths about climate science, with ZERO skepticism, and then they wonder why we call them deniers. You are not scientific skeptics by any stretch of the imagination. That is the only Cult here a cult of willful ignorance
 
Sep 11, 2020
2
2
10
To many errors in this "scientific" article to be taken seriously. On another note, as certain areas are heating up other areas are cooling down. It is not accurate to randomly selectively choose the temperature readings to utilize and average them to come up with a premise that supports your hypothesis. This reads more like a statistical modeling presentation that uses bad readings and presents a conclusion that has been predetermined. Not sound science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbjones and Rodkeh
Sep 11, 2020
2
2
10
--------------

So why do you even bother coming to articles on Science, which you obviously know less than nothing about?
Yes CO2 was much higher hundreds of millions of years ago. And the Sun was several percent weaker than it is now. For example, about 300 million years ago, CO2 was even higher than during the Jurassic. And the Sun was so much weaker that it would have taken 3,000ppm CO2 just to keep the planet from being an iceball in space. You have no idea about the context of the time frames you are talking about.
The temperature then were far higher than anything humans evolved under.
If the sun was weaker then and stronger now, would that not attribute higher temperatures on earth due to solar activity?
 
Jan 22, 2020
5
6
35
Climate is determined by the internal heat of this planet and neither We, CO2 nor solar energy have anything whatsoever to do with climate.

The temperature of the climate is the same as the temperature of the subsurface gradient, below which temperatures never change but above which the temperatures change with the seasons, just as they do above ground and since it is well understood that it is always the ground that heats the air, the source of climate becomes glaringly obvious.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY