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

Page 4 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Sep 11, 2020
15
2
35
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.
We don't need to be obedient to U in any way shape or form
U try to make it look like co2 in the atmosphere is a legitimate excuse to waste hard earned taxpayers money
Those monies are necessary for real needs ,not just to feed the egos of grifters like U
 
Apr 12, 2020
46
10
55
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.
Perhaps he has more faith in the charts like the example I posted in my avatar. There are cycles between ice ages such as the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle that occurs every 1500 years (called Bond events in the Holcene ). This cycle may be oscillatory in nature shuttling heat between the north and southern hemispheres; warmth flows from one hemisphere to the other, causes melting which disrupts flows of warmth between hemispheres, resulting in cooling happening again.Oh if you note they are called optimum.

Solar cycles have been identified as being a forcing event for the climate [2,3,4]. Periods of sun-spot activity have an eleven year cycle and show some correlation with recorded temperature.
When reading about these periodic variations some issues become apparent. Firstly, the temperature changes are small.

Secondly the periodic cycles that occur in the sun and earth’s rotation are not set to clockwork and there is still lots of debate about when these events happen. Thirdly a big volcano can fill the atmosphere with dust particles that reflect back sunlight and reduce the temperature, so it is believed that a massive explosion from Krakatoa caused diminished sunlight and crop failure from AD 535-536 . The lack of clarity round past climate variations and events has two consequences for the global warming debate; it enables frequent re-interpretation of data to retrofit cyclic factors, and it means there is no clear prediction from cyclic solar or orbital effects that allow refutable predictions.

I think I will stop there because you probably will not give this notice. But what you should give notice is that research facilities garner for federal finds so they best calamity situations they can present will possibly give them the best chance at funding. It really is all about the money. That is why there is evidence of nothing out of the ordinary , to global freezing to global warming.
 
Apr 22, 2020
12
2
35
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
You're right. No one says that CO² is a "long term heat sink ." No one says that the atmosphere's specific heat capacity depends on the types of gases in it.

That's because those factors have nothing to do with the case. The greenhouse effect isn't about heat sinks, or specific heat capacity. Read about it and try to understand how it actually works. I'm not going to do the work for you by explaining it here.
 
Last edited:
Apr 22, 2020
12
2
35
We don't need to be obedient to U in any way shape or form
U try to make it look like co2 in the atmosphere is a legitimate excuse to waste hard earned taxpayers money
Those monies are necessary for real needs ,not just to feed the egos of grifters like U
So sorry! I didn't mean to say that anyone should be "obedient."

Let me rephrase: "In order to understand the issue, you would need to read the article ... " Better?
 
Apr 22, 2020
12
2
35
Perhaps he has more faith in the charts like the example I posted in my avatar. There are cycles between ice ages such as the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle that occurs every 1500 years (called Bond events in the Holcene ). This cycle may be oscillatory in nature shuttling heat between the north and southern hemispheres; warmth flows from one hemisphere to the other, causes melting which disrupts flows of warmth between hemispheres, resulting in cooling happening again.Oh if you note they are called optimum.

Solar cycles have been identified as being a forcing event for the climate [2,3,4]. Periods of sun-spot activity have an eleven year cycle and show some correlation with recorded temperature.
When reading about these periodic variations some issues become apparent. Firstly, the temperature changes are small.

Secondly the periodic cycles that occur in the sun and earth’s rotation are not set to clockwork and there is still lots of debate about when these events happen. Thirdly a big volcano can fill the atmosphere with dust particles that reflect back sunlight and reduce the temperature, so it is believed that a massive explosion from Krakatoa caused diminished sunlight and crop failure from AD 535-536 . The lack of clarity round past climate variations and events has two consequences for the global warming debate; it enables frequent re-interpretation of data to retrofit cyclic factors, and it means there is no clear prediction from cyclic solar or orbital effects that allow refutable predictions.

I think I will stop there because you probably will not give this notice. But what you should give notice is that research facilities garner for federal finds so they best calamity situations they can present will possibly give them the best chance at funding. It really is all about the money. That is why there is evidence of nothing out of the ordinary , to global freezing to global warming.
He does seem to have more faith in charts like yours, that only go back a few thousand years. But the article is based on a chart that goes back tens of millions of years, showing the correlation between CO² concentration and temperature, and also showing, through its larger scale, that natural effects such as those you mention are small by comparison.

Your last paragraph is indeed beneath notice, as an ad hominem attack. But--do you know any rich scientists?
 
Sep 11, 2020
15
2
35
You're right. No one says that CO² is a "long term heat sink ." No one says that the atmosphere's specific heat capacity depends on the types of gases in it.

That's because those factors have nothing to do with the case. The greenhouse effect isn't about heat sinks, or specific heat capacity. Read about it and try to understand how it actually works. I'm not going to do the work for you by explaining it here.
U just have to accept that U can't always browbeat people
into lowering their I Q enough to think U are credible
global warming isn't a danger
Fanatics like U are
U want to spend endless sums chasing co2 molecules
get a real job that produces benefit to society
instead of trying to bilk the taxpayers out of just mere perversity and greed
 
Mar 19, 2020
177
18
105
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
Thats bacause you read the chart wrong man. It you look at it they had to expand the recent years so it doesn't look like it's just a line straight up.
 
Mar 19, 2020
177
18
105
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.
Chloroflourocarbons are not related to carbon dixoide. They are what causes ozone holes.
 
Mar 19, 2020
177
18
105
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.
I agree with you on nuclear power. BUT, I'm just going to ask you what exploded to cause the permian global warming.


Have an answer yet? Volcano? Well, kind of.

The siberian traps have a salt layer under them. Magma, attemping to reach the surface, got trrapped by the salt layer. Which warmed up the rich coal and oil reserves there. The fuel exploded, remenants of which you can still find today. And HUNDEREDS of times even what humans have released enters the atmosphere. Causing global warming we would be dead before we got to. Deep ocean tempurature was close to 100 degrees farenhiet. 95% of all life and biodiversity ended there. The world was acctually cooling during the time of the dinosaurs. We are quite litterally doing the same thing. Pumping out fuel and burning it, albiet slower, not at the same time. But we will certainly get there. IT is CO2. NOt it wasn't the dinosaur's fault. The was the rich cambrian oil shales.
 
Mar 19, 2020
177
18
105
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.
Nobody is really safe though, the mental damage still exists. People get strokes from it as well, young people.
 
Mar 19, 2020
177
18
105
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?
No, Each one of those is a few thousand years. Read the scale, man.
 
Mar 19, 2020
177
18
105
U just have to accept that U can't always browbeat people
into lowering their I Q enough to think U are credible
global warming isn't a danger
Fanatics like U are
U want to spend endless sums chasing co2 molecules
get a real job that produces benefit to society
instead of trying to bilk the taxpayers out of just mere perversity and greed
"U can't always browbeat people into lowering their IQ enough to think U are credible"
Coming from a person who can't spell "you" or use punctuation is silly.
 
Mar 19, 2020
177
18
105
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.
Hmmm.... Really? I've never heard anything other than it might snow more because there is more water vapor in the air during the winter.
 
Mar 19, 2020
177
18
105
We don't need to be obedient to U in any way shape or form
U try to make it look like co2 in the atmosphere is a legitimate excuse to waste hard earned taxpayers money
Those monies are necessary for real needs ,not just to feed the egos of grifters like U
Compared to government spending on other issues, this is a tiny slice of the pie. And much of this is in from other budgets for other agencies. I find it slightly absurd that you are acting like this is some kind of scientists geting crazy amounts of grant money for something that doesn't exist.
 
Sep 11, 2020
15
2
35
"U can't always browbeat people into lowering their IQ enough to think U are credible"
Coming from a person who can't spell "you" or use punctuation is silly.
deflection from up your ying yang
do U really think putting on a patronizing mien gives U credibility?
U're such an airhead
 
Sep 11, 2020
15
2
35
Compared to government spending on other issues, this is a tiny slice of the pie. And much of this is in from other budgets for other agencies. I find it slightly absurd that you are acting like this is some kind of scientists geting crazy amounts of grant money for something that doesn't exist.
U fanatics try tooooo hard
It would be merely amusing if governments weren't fools enough to finance U
with taxpayers money that is needed for legitimate and genuine purposes
 
Apr 12, 2020
46
10
55
He does seem to have more faith in charts like yours, that only go back a few thousand years. But the article is based on a chart that goes back tens of millions of years, showing the correlation between CO² concentration and temperature, and also showing, through its larger scale, that natural effects such as those you mention are small by comparison.

Your last paragraph is indeed beneath notice, as an ad hominem attack. But--do you know any rich scientists?
Does not matter how far or how short charts go back as the information remains the same, facts are facts hence why they are facts. And sorry to disappoint but I do not need to stoop to attacks son I only need to stand with facts so I do not need to engage in ad hominems, now if I were to have called you a possible troll then you might have a leg to stand on so perhaps you should have taken better notice instead of thinking next what to type, but...do you know any billion dollar research facilities?
 
Sep 5, 2020
4
1
15
----------------------
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.
Totally agree with your assessment. In the years I have been on this planet it is becoming increasingly apparent that, if not barrelling, the climate is rapidly changing, especially in the last several years. We've hardly had a winter in the last three years, while by November we had been in our winter coats and experiencing snow.
Climate change should never have been made a political issue. Humans are not the only ones it affects.
 
Sep 23, 2020
22
2
35
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
Ii
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edward
Dec 4, 2019
10
3
35
----------------------
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.
All the temperature vs CO2 graphs show that warming precedes CO2 rise back to millions of years ago. You can't get around that. You have cause and effect backwards. And it is obvious that temperature rise should precede CO2 rise, since rising temperatures cause the oceans to degas. Simple physics not mumbo jumbo physics. Look for another reason if we are getting warmer, I have not noticed it. Spring was awfully cold this year and for a long time. But, still coming out of a previous ice age that melted about 2 miles of ice off much of Canada and the US seems a good reason. Even though we don't know what causes ice ages, they are certainly more scary than a warmer temperature.
 
Dec 4, 2019
10
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. ...
Now who is really wrong? You are. You have forgotten the 32° adjustment factor. The article is correct.

You wrote:
1) 16 degrees Celsius = 28.8 degrees Fahrenheit (NOT "60 degrees Fahrenheit") + 32° = 60°F as shown.
2) 4 degrees Celsius = 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (NOT "40 F") + 32° = 40°F. Notice that your 4.2°F is well below the freezing point which is 32°F whereas the 4°C is obviously above freezing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY