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

[SailRick]

The Sun is was without spots for the first time in five years after 21 days of minimal activity were observed through the course of 2016. And it could take up to 15 years for solar activity to return to normal with extreme weather and freezing temperatures continuing until 2035. So wake me when you decide whose inconvenient truth I should listen to.

Ah, the good old nonsense about a mini ice age because of a predicted grand solar minimum event. ONE scientist is responsible for the study that believers cite. He NEVER said there would be a mini ice age. And whether one will happen is very doubtful anyway.
---
How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?

"For both the A1B and A2 emission scenario, the effect of a Maunder Minimum on global temperature is minimal. The most likely impact of a Maunder Minimum by 2100 would be a decrease in global temperature of 0.1°C with a maximum reduction of warming by 0.3°C. Compare this to global warming between 3.7°C (A1B scenario) to 4.5°C (A2 scenario)."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html

 

[SailRick]

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.

---
No, it is most definitely Not the Sun
Solar activity has decreased since 1960. And about 2/3 of the warming since 1880 has happened since 1960.

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.

 

[SailRick]

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.

---
100% FALSE

What influence do underground temperatures have on climate?

"The flow of energy outwards from the interior of the Earth is 1/10,000th of the size of the energy flow from the Sun. Furthermore, over the past few million years, the heat flow from deep in the Earth has also remained very steady compared to other climatic factors. Heat from the bowels of the Earth does not influence climate in any significant way."

"The net increase in the amount of planetary energy flow arising from human activities (mainly the emision of carbon dioxide) since the industrial revolution is more than twenty times the steady-state heat flow from the Earth’s interior. Any small changes in the Earth’s heat flow over that time period—and there is no evidence for any change at all—would plainly be inconsequential."

What influence do underground temperatures have on climate?

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

 

[william1066]

... so called science is any thing but wishful thinking

I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. I do however know that if I go to bed with a tracksuit on and get inside a 15 tog sleeping bag at home and switch on my electric blanket, I am going to have a very bad night, or worse.

All I had to do was connect how co2 levels are measured [absorption of IR] with the CO2 charts of the last 100+ years or so to know we are rapidly increasing the "tog" level of the "sleeping bag" around the earth with an electric blanket [the sun] that we can't switch off.

Unless we can remove most of the "down" from this "sleeping bag" [carbon capture], we are in for a very rough time.

I am not sure it is much more complicated than that, imho.

 

[amos083]

Yes, how can these elitist scientist tell us -- those people who had done nothing in their lives than to spend years studying and researching climate, who rely on nothing but billions of data points, collected over decades by thousands of observers who had nothing better to do than go to the remote ends of the Earth and take measurements in all types of weather -- how can they tell US that GW is caused by humans? WE know better, we have read an internet post!

 

[BRAD0105]

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. ...

I don’t know about how you convert Celsius to Fahrenheit in the US but here in Canada the freezing point of water is 0 degrees C and 32 degrees F AND IN FACT 16 degrees Celsius IS 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit as well as 4 C IS 39.2 F. Anyone using the 1.0C = 1.8 F formula has forgotten the +32. We use both scales here in Canada and I can assure you 16 degrees Celsius is NOT 28.8 degrees Fahrenheit (3.2 below freezing).

 

[StanRH]

You have repeated a standard denier nonsense LIE about the science. Volcanoes as a source of CO2 are less than 1/100th human emissions. This a very well documented scientific FACT

So, you like other deniers are not practicing any kind of scientific skepticism.

alarmist ,=good guy
denier= bad guy
got it

 

[StanRH]

the contemptible thing about alarmists in most peoples' minds,
is that in such a damaged economy ,the alarmists feel a need to bleed off more resources in pursuit of attempting to turn virtual reality climate change into a real world actuality

 

[Broadlands]

Sailrick: "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."

The only reason anyone ("we") is concerned about the climate today is entirely because "we" have accepted without any skepticism, ZERO? the results of climate models that forecast the climate apocalypse. There was no such concern when the climate stopped warming in 1940 and cooled for almost 40 years while CO2 kept rising. And few are "deniers" that over the last several hundred years the global mean temperature anomaly has increased only 0.75°C. Hardly an emergency.

 

[RobertPolaris]

Well .... the pandemic is ultimately natures revenge though we are doing our best to stop nature picking off the old, vulnerable and weak ... because that is what good people tend to do, they look after each other. The question is, if we hold a position that we should just let nature take its course with this virus should we be applying that more broadly to things like Ebola, Smallpox, Cancer etc? We would save a ton of money, but I guess this would go against human nature.

Then nature has chosen a poor tool of revenge, it has a 97 to 99% recovery rate and it has only claimed 921153 in comparison to 20652620 recoveries as of this posting. Doesn't even fit the definition of what a pandemic is.

 

[RobertPolaris]

Sailrick: "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."

The only reason anyone ("we") is concerned about the climate today is entirely because "we" have accepted without any skepticism, ZERO? the results of climate models that forecast the climate apocalypse. There was no such concern when the climate stopped warming in 1940 and cooled for almost 40 years while CO2 kept rising. And few are "deniers" that over the last several hundred years the global mean temperature anomaly has increased only 0.75°C. Hardly an emergency.

The reason "every denier" believes something different is because there is just as much different facts against it from the main scientist coming out that he lied to scientists said the Sun is was without spots for the first time in five years after 21 days of minimal activity were observed through the course of 2016. And it could take up to 15 years for solar activity to return to normal with extreme weather and freezing temperatures continuing until 2035.

 

[RobertPolaris]

Ah, the good old nonsense about a mini ice age because of a predicted grand solar minimum event. ONE scientist is responsible for the study that believers cite. He NEVER said there would be a mini ice age. And whether one will happen is very doubtful anyway.
---
How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?

"For both the A1B and A2 emission scenario, the effect of a Maunder Minimum on global temperature is minimal. The most likely impact of a Maunder Minimum by 2100 would be a decrease in global temperature of 0.1°C with a maximum reduction of warming by 0.3°C. Compare this to global warming between 3.7°C (A1B scenario) to 4.5°C (A2 scenario)."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html

Well the ones who want to promote global warming (I have read about this for years) simply justify the facts of the "coming global freezing"by saying the country is freezing in an unprecedented fashion, and global warming is to blame. Yet another twist to the facts that is spread as truth, hard to believe anyone when the powers that be cannot even agree...now there is an inconvenient truth.

 

[StanRH]

Well the ones who want to promote global warming (I have read about this for years) simply justify the facts of the "coming global freezing"by saying the country is freezing in an unprecedented fashion, and global warming is to blame. Yet another twist to the facts that is spread as truth, hard to believe anyone when the powers that be cannot even agree...now there is an inconvenient truth.

he even brought along his neglected imaginary friends a1b and a2
I think he wants us to pretend we see them also

 

[glehman]

The converted fahrenheit value doesn't seem right

60F, now THAT would be something to worry about.

 

[glehman]

--------------

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.

You take much license with the sun's status as a main sequence star. There is a LOT of variability in main sequence stars--too much for your inferences.

 

[StanRH]

No one versed in science believes that co2 or any other atmospheric gas is a long term heat sink .
A warm wind won't be warmer for having more co2 than another equally warm wind .
the specific heat capacity isn't dependent on purity or types of gases in the atmosphere

 

[glehman]

----------------------
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.

Rong! Averaging recovery from the LGM and LIA is bogus. Recovery zigs and zags, with many periods of faster warming than current.

• Severinghaus, J. P. and Beaudette, R. and Headly, M. A. and Taylor, K. and Brook, E. J. 2009. Oxygen-18 of O2 Records the Impact of Abrupt Climate Change on the Terrestrial Biosphere. Science. 324:1431-1434. 10.1126/science.1169473

 

[StanRH]

In every 85,000 molecules of air, just 33 are CO2. For every 33 molecules of CO2, 32 are from Nature and known to be essential to all life on Earth ,It's just not that influential is it?

 

[StanRH]

why are U so full of yourself sailrick?
what are U so desperate about
is climate alarmist your sole identity
U keep a mishmash of irrelevancy going ,
Why?????

 

[ThinkTank]

I know this is off subject but there maybe a way to get information or data right away from probes and astronauts no matter how far away in space . Reply to this if u would like to here my concepts. I would really like to share this and to be enlightened if I'm wrong.

 

[akirasunbear]

I don’t know about how you convert Celsius to Fahrenheit in the US but here in Canada the freezing point of water is 0 degrees C and 32 degrees F AND IN FACT 16 degrees Celsius IS 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit as well as 4 C IS 39.2 F. Anyone using the 1.0C = 1.8 F formula has forgotten the +32. We use both scales here in Canada and I can assure you 16 degrees Celsius is NOT 28.8 degrees Fahrenheit (3.2 below freezing).

This is a great question - I'm sure you are not alone in questioning it. It is a bit tricky, so an example may help:

Let's say you have two glasses of water in front of you, and you measured the water temperature in each. Water in glass A was (let's say) 10C (which is 50F). Glass B's water temperature was also 10C(50F). Given these two measurements, would you say...:

a) "The temperature difference was 0C (0F)."
-or-
b) "The temperature difference was 0C (32F)."

(The correct answer is of course a), because there was no difference in water temperature and 50F - 50F = 0F. Note also that the original article has already been corrected, with an editor's note appended: " This story was updated on Sept. 11 to fix two Celsius and Fahrenheit conversions.")

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.

I think SFG makes a great point. I would imagine that an educator could, for example, make it a standing policy to give extra credits if and when students find (and appropriately correct) non-trivial errors in science reporting (of subject matters being taught). It could benefit both students as well as the public.

 

[Trye]

Scientists used marine fossils and orbital data to recreate 66 million years of climate history. Its shows that climate change is anything but 'normal.'

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

Silly.

 

[Trye]

Silly.

 

[Mudbone]

It looks to me like this graph shows many small fluctuations in temperature of say 1 to 6 degrees displayed as the thin black lines. If this is the case then wouldn't 1 or so degrees in 100 years be pretty much in line with the average and the overall trend basically unchanged?

 

[bolide]

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 need to read the article, and you need to look at the whole chart, not just the last 0.01% of it. They are assessing climate variations over millions of years. The graph shows a broad downward trend. Major variations correlate with atmospheric CO² levels, while variations due to natural cycles have a relatively small effect.

Now atmospheric CO² has risen, in just a couple of hundred years, to a level not seen in several million years, which can not be explained by any natural cause. And temperatures are following, likewise rising at record rates. If these trends continue, and the future resembles the past, then large portions of the planet will become uninhabitable for humans, and the present continental coasts, where human civilization concentrates, will be under water. We are already seeing the first effects.