Of course, this ancient event is supposed to create fear and anxiety and push Other People to give up their use of fossil fuels and move towards a 15th Century lifestyle
Climate Change Predications Confirmed by Ancient Warming Event
Current climate change predictions have been confirmed by an ancient warming event that surpasses today’s warming world, according to a new study.
Between 2.3 to 3.3 million years ago during the Pliocene Epoch, the Earth’s temperature was around 2 degrees Celsius (35.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is today, while atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) were around 350-450 parts per million (ppm), similar to the levels reached in the past few years (400 ppm).
Evidence of this previous warm period came from an analysis of ancient plankton fossils drilled from the ocean floor.
By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth’s history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to rising CO2 levels – a parameter known as “climate sensitivity.” The findings, published in the journal Nature, are in line with future predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to the international research team.
So, wait, what caused the increase in CO2 and temperatures?
Skeptics of man-made climate change (including even members of the US Senate) have long referred to the global warming “pause,” or “hiatus” as evidence that humans are not to blame for the changing climate, and that climate models are inaccurate. But this new study shows that despite this pause, climate models are right on target.
Ah, So, this is meant to protect the 95% failed computer models over real world data, as well as continue the trope that doom is coming sometime in the future, and that mankind is to blame. But, again, what caused that CO2 increase millions of years ago which supposedly caused the warming? And, can it be specifically blamed on CO2? The Sun is the primary driver of climate, and the weather that, over long periods of time, creates climate. If this all happened before fossil fuels, modern industry, DVRs, and hair dryers, could this not mean that the current warm period, which has a temperature that is below the temperature of several previous Holocene warm periods, is caused mostly by Nature? Warmists will say “no”, but, their own failure to modify their own lives to match their rhetoric gives lie to that notion.
So you’re now a mind reader? The computer models have not failed. They predict that CO2 causes the Earth to warm. CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. Repeating Roy Spencer’s lie about the models don’t change the facts.
Nonsense. That a climate scientist eats a steak now and then has no bearing on whether fossil fuel CO2 is causing warming.
I don’t know, but I do know what is causing the current CO2 increase. Burning of fossil fuels. And that increase is causing the Earth to warm. It’s not that complicated.
So many falsehoods hooked together…
Are changes in the Sun’s radiation or changes in the Earth’s reception of the radiation responsible for the current warming period? No.
What natural process is causing the Earth to warm now?
That’s just untrue. Name one Holocene period that was warmer than now and back up your claim with evidence.
Is it just me, or did Jeff just admit that CO2 has nothing to do with the current warm period?
It actually looks like he’s saying there is no reason within the realm of each sciences for the warm period. Perhaps unicorns?
It is just you. Why do you persist with childish games?
Ahhh yes UNICORNS!! Although many many anti science climate change DO believe in the mythical unicorn ( they are mentioned twice in the Bible) maybe Teach does really believe in unicorns
Perhaps Our Billy has been taking Dr Elizabeth Mitchell seriously not only about the denial of AGW but also her belief
In UNICORNS !!!
No Teach whst Jeff is trying to point out is that deniers don’t seem to be able to show us any better reason than to think the tps are going up. Than CO2
No orbit change and no increase in solar irradiance
Quite frankly I don’t agree that unicorns have had any influence on climate
Now don’t get me wrong here Billy if you want to believe in the Biblically acknowledged existence of unicorns then go ahead,
Even decorate your room with them if you like, but stay away from thinking that they mayhave had any influence in our past climate
Even that dr Mitchell denier will not go that far
This is just more poppycock and shenanigans. Everyone knows that the world was a perfect 75 degrees since the beginning of time, until man started burning fossilized plants. Rain only came when needed. The sun would shine bright all the time. There were no big storms or earthquakes.
We didn’t even have a word for ‘drought’ or ‘flood’ until 1850. Because there was no such thing before CO2.
[…] Apparently the world was warmer with carbon dioxide levels (similar to what we have today) several m…. This is used to argue the correlation between higher CO2 levels and mean temperature…but of course the question is how did the higher CO2 happen several million years ago and why did it change? […]
Anything will show warming if the data is manipulated, as in what’s happening with the GW hoax. And there’s still that annoying MWP that won’t go away.
j,
The giant conspiratorial hoax involving tens of thousands of scientists, every major scientific body and most governments is unraveling from the efforts of bloggers and citizen scientists! Without question it’s the greatest hoax in human history since it has fooled every intelligent person on Earth. To support their hoax they’ve been able to make the great ice sheets in the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland melt. They’ve hoaxed skeptics Roy Spencer and John Christy into making the satellites show warming. They’ve falsified the sea level records.
Can you believe they chose the easily refuted hypothesis that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation? It’s a trace gas for gawd’s sake! They underestimated the right-wing blogosphere!
The Earth has warmed and cooled before proving that the warming that is not happening now is natural.
And let’s not forget that the hoaxers have been incredibly lucky or they are just really good. Every bit of data and evidence lines up their way.
Climate zones are a manmade descriptive construct by averaging weather data; matching patterns of weather formation; and comparing similar flora and fauna. There are several different Climate zone classification systems. Climate zones describe “what is” over a 30-year history time span. Climate zones do not describe “What ought to be.”
To blame mankind for climate change is assigning moral agency and moral values to humans. That is a religious and philosophical problem. Scientifically, as an animal, humans do what they have evolved to do. One of those evolved survival traits is environmental manipulation ie. building shelter or wearing clothes to alter the temp/wet factors around himself; or domesticating plants and animals for food and power; or domesticating fire. Survival traits are not right or wrong in wolves, ants or humans. These survival traits are very effective as the human animal successfully occupies all climatic zones on the planet; few animals or plants can do that.
Warmists cry that the human animal is destroying the planet by modifying the overall temps to warmer. Evolution will cure that if it is not an effective survival tactic. If Destruction is occurring, warmists had better begin modifying their behavior for survival or evolution will do it for them.
Human biological evolution occurs much more slowly than a century or two.
You are correct that humans are animals that have evolved opposable thumbs and big brains, but to assume that all our actions are acceptable and wise is contradicted by our history. Because of our big brains and social structure we are inclined to limit the harm we cause other humans, including limiting environmental pollutants.
The term “blame” is value laden in this context. Telling the truth is not necessarily placing blame. CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. The CO2 is from humans burning fossil fuels as energy sources.
Whether there is slight warming or not, the point to be taken is that the catastrophic warming predictions of the modellers, 1980s, 90s and 2000s failed. The concept that CO2 is the control knob on the global thermostat is, as of yet, totally unproven.
Jeffery, Let me make my point clearer. Blame cannot be assigned to the human animal doing the strategies it has evolved for survival. If the planet is warming because of those survival strategies; that is a natural process which has no moral, ethical, blame, shame, associated with it. It may be destructive to ultimate human survival, but it is simply evolution working its self out. It is no different than animals overgrazing its range, or becoming overpopulated and disease thins the herd, or wolves killing too many prey to sustain the pack.
I do not assume that humans behavior is “acceptable and wise”. And I do not agree that humans limit harm to other humans or limit environmental damage out of survival. History demonstrates Humans will limit some harm to tribal members but not to strangers and enemies. Kind treatment of strangers is an ethical/moral issue which is rarely survival helpful. Human history is bloody and greedy. Human kindness is rare.
If you want to think the planet it warming because of CO2 and humans are causing CO2 to increase, have at it. Evolution/survival/nature says “So What?” “Survival will be for those that can adapt to higher CO2.” You are hoping the truth, the reality of warming occurring, will change human behavior. Hope is not a strategy of survival.
The current warming is not “slight”. The current temperature increase is greater than the total range of the temperatures during the Holocene – that is, during the time of all human civilization. And there is no reason to expect the increase to stop.
The climate deniers are often the same people who believe in unicorns because the Bible tells them that they did exist
The climate deniers are anti science
Blick,
It’s an interesting proposition – that since humans are “natural” animals on Earth, any outcome of our struggles to survive is natural, and should not be subject to any conscious human controls. Our desires for resources and our need to defend ourselves from invaders still allows us to set limits regarding nuclear weapons – not for the good of individual nations but for civilization as a whole.
Modern sewer/sanitation systems were developed from our understanding of disease transmission. Dumping raw sewage into the Missouri River in KC was bad for humans in St. Louis.
The level of consciousness that humans have evolved enables us to plan for the future. The quality of altruism that has evolved (and therefore must offer an evolutionary advantage to the species) results in concern for the survival of our future generations. The Montreal Protocol is an international agreement to limit halogenated hydrocarbon emissions reducing atmospheric ozone depletion.
John, Jeff,
You are nut jobs. Your out right lying and obfuscation are painfully evident.
Jeff,
Did you ever look up the cholesterol issue. It was a conspiracy to make cholesterol into the element that caused CV disease. Yet, recent review of those studies and new knowledge has indicted that those thousand and thousands of scientist and government were WRONG!!! Now, another way of using conspiracy is to use the word discourse. This is much more accurate. In the past, you could not publish an anti-cholesterol article, just like you can’t publish an anti-climate article. You could not get grants without acknowledging cholesterols role in disease, just like you can’t get grants and teaching positions without acknowledging CO2. The problem that you and John have is a lack of education. You have never, ever been to a journal club or critically discussed a paper. In fact, you have never actually seen any of the numerous scientific papers you say are out there. That is because you don’t get the technical journals. You only read opinion pieces on the internet and that ain’t science.
The only two altruism that “survival of the fittest” allows, is survival of more able bodied humans for protection and production, and Mother’s love to protect offspring until they can be productive. The weak and infirm are only protected as long as surplus resources (extra CO2 production) exist for their needs. Survival demands that the best warriors, the most productive hunters, the most skilled artisans, the most productive farmers, the best breeders, the best leaders/innovators receive the most and first of the resources.
Humans have the ability to project the present into the future (imagination)and the ability to plan and problem solve. That is not altruism. That is mostly self-preservation. Nuclear treaties are self-preservation. Sanitation is self-preservation. Medicine is self-preservation. No altruism involved.
However, all that planning and problem-solving requires enormous amounts of resources and power to accomplish. Take your example of public sanitation, think it thru, The piping, pumps, trucks, chemicals, needed to treat and deliver water, then collect and treat the wastewater and the trucks needed to pick up and treat solid waste. All of that generates CO2 at every point in the process. That CO2 is a “cost” of public sanitation. Reducing the production of CO2 is reducing the level of services and reducing the level of resource use. Chemically, combining CO2 back into other substances requires the same amount of energy as it did to release it. Those are the only two options for reducing CO2 — reduction of resource/services use and chemically combining CO2 to sequester it.
That is incorrect. Altruism can evolve due to kin selection, such as cooperation in close-knit groups or tribes.
Jeffery, You use the words “Good” and “Bad” in describing the benefits of Nuclear treaties and public sanitation. Science and Evolution admits no such values. The only value is — survival of the fittest individuals for improving the survival of the species — thru a random process of mutations. You may use the words “successful” or “unsuccessful” in describing survival strategies or the impact of human efforts on survival. “Successful Adaptation” is the only value of Evolution.
Moral value words, assumes religion, philosophy, and therefore, asks for answers to a whole host of questions that science is not prepared to answer.
Public sanitation and medicine allow more individuals to survive, but overpopulation is not a successful species survival strategy. Overpopulation leads to resource overuse and pollution (CO2?) But now you are asking for “control” and that leads back to moral and ethical questions of “who decides” “who controls” and by what measures?
Zachriel, Altruism is a cultural artifact, not a species survival strategy. Humans will be kind to other humans and even family members AS LONG AS surplus resources exist. Let food and water shortages occur and altruism disappears quickly and riots and violence occurs. Families and tribes may pull together for a time but eventually the fittest survive and the weakest die out. Read about the Donner Party, Lord of the Flies, Elderly Eskimos on ice floes, abortion, human organ theft, fights over family inheritance.
Altruism is an ethical icing that people put on the Evolution cake.
Blick,
So you wouldn’t do without for the benefit of your children?
Not just humans display biological altruism.
That is correct only if “fittest” means reproductively successful and “weakest” means unsuccessful.
There are more E. coli in one human turd than all the people who have ever lived on Earth.
Not necessarily. The gradual conversion from fossil fuel burning to other energy sources is what’s needed. Your children’s children’s children will thank you.
That is incorrect. Kin selection is supported by a number of studies, and explains altruism in organisms as diverse as bees and chimpanzees.
That does not mean that kin selection doesn’t occur, or that altruism isn’t an evolutionary adaptation. It just means altruism is just one of several behavioral patterns.
Jeffery, Nice try to make it about me personally and not address the implications of Evolutionary Theory. That is a juvenile tactic. Bu-bye.
Zachriel, Evolution is a dark and bloody philosophy if followed thru its implications. It does not allow for niceties, and ethics and morals. Evolution does not deal in “ought to’s”
Evolution is all about species competition for resources and cooperation for resources. Cooperation is a survival strategy. Altruism operates at the individual level of choice and maybe at a small group level. The surprising fact is altruism even exists. (bees are not individuals self-aware choosing to sacrifice in defense of the hive. Genetically bees are identical twins of each other.)Evolution is about adaptation of the fittest species mutations to the environment. Individuals are only pieces of the evolutionary process as carriers and spreaders of mutations to be tested for their adaptive benefits. There are probably many more mutations that are killed off before the carrier can mate and pass on the mutation to offspring.
Blick: Evolution is a dark and bloody philosophy if followed thru its implications. It does not allow for niceties, and ethics and morals.
If a trait is heritable, then it is subject to evolutionary effects. If people tend to form attachments to other people they know, then this is a heritable trait and subject to selection. If they tend to distrust strangers, then this too is subject to selection.
Blick: The surprising fact is altruism even exists.
Not so surprising given kin selection in social organisms.
Blick: (bees are not individuals self-aware choosing to sacrifice in defense of the hive. Genetically bees are identical twins of each other.)
Bees are haplodiploid, so sister bees are not identical, but are related by 75% of their genes.
Awareness is not a requirement of biological altruism.