Paleo study: Past global warming similar to today's

climate-past
Global temperature reconstruction over the past 420,000 years derived from δ18O anomalies in air trapped in ice strata at Vostok station, Antarctica. To render the anomalies global, the values of the reconstructed anomalies (y axis) have been divided by the customary factor 2 to allow for polar amplification. Diagram based on Petit et al. (1999). Note that all four previous interglacial warm periods, at intervals of 80,000-125,000 years, were at least as warm as the current warm period. Data source: Petit et al. (1999). (not part of the Utah press release, provided for reference)

From the University of Utah

Size, duration were like modern climate shift, but in two pulses

Sediment cores that were drilled from Wyoming’s Bighorn Basin and then sectioned for study are shown at a repository at the University of Bremen, Germany.

SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 15, 2014 – The rate at which carbon emissions warmed Earth’s climate almost 56 million years ago resembles modern, human-caused global warming much more than previously believed, but involved two pulses of carbon to the atmosphere, University of Utah researchers and their colleagues found.

The findings mean the so-called Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM, can provide clues to the future of modern climate change. The good news: Earth and most species survived. The bad news: It took millennia to recover from the episode, when temperatures rose by 5 to 8 degrees Celsius (9 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit).

“There is a positive note in that the world persisted, it did not go down in flames, it has a way of self-correcting and righting itself,” says University of Utah geochemist Gabe Bowen, lead author of the study published today in the journal Nature Geoscience. “However, in this event it took almost 200,000 years before things got back to normal.”

Bowen and colleagues report that carbonate or limestone nodules in Wyoming sediment cores show the global warming episode 55.5 million to 55.3 million years ago involved the average annual release of a minimum of 0.9 petagrams (1.98 trillion pounds) of carbon to the atmosphere, and probably much more over shorter periods.

That is “within an order of magnitude of, and may have approached, the 9.5 petagrams [20.9 trillion pounds] per year associated with modern anthropogenic carbon emissions,” the researchers wrote. Since 1900, human burning of fossil fuels emitted an average of 3 petagrams per year – even closer to the rate 55.5 million years ago.

Each pulse of carbon emissions lasted no more than 1,500 years. Previous conflicting evidence indicated the carbon release lasted anywhere from less than a year to tens of thousands of years. The new research shows atmospheric carbon levels returned to normal within a few thousand years after the first pulse, probably as carbon dissolved in the ocean. It took up to 200,000 years for conditions to normalize after the second pulse.

The new study also ruled as unlikely some theorized causes of the warming episode, including an asteroid impact, slow melting of permafrost, burning of organic-rich soil or drying out of a major seaway. Instead, the findings suggest, in terms of timing, that more likely causes included melting of seafloor methane ices known as clathrates, or volcanism heating organic-rich rocks and releasing methane.

“The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum has stood out as a striking, but contested, example of how 21st-century-style atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup can affect climate, environments and ecosystems worldwide,” says Bowen, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Utah.

“This new study tightens the link,” he adds. “Carbon release back then looked a lot like human fossil-fuel emissions today, so we might learn a lot about the future from changes in climate, plants, and animal communities 55.5 million years ago.”

Bowen cautioned, however, that global climate already was much warmer than today’s when the Paleocene-Eocene warming began, and there were no icecaps, “so this played out on a different playing field than what we have today.”

Sudy co-author Scott Wing, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, adds: “This study gives us the best idea yet of how quickly this vast amount of carbon was released at the beginning of the global warming event we call the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. The answer is just a few thousands of years or less. That’s important because it means the ancient event happened at a rate more like human-caused global warming than we ever realized.”

IMAGE: This image shows University of Utah geochemist Gabe Bowen working on Wyoming sediment cores at a lab in Germany for a study that showed today’s global warming is more similar…

Click here for more information.

Bowen and Wing conducted the study with University of Utah geology and geophysics master’s graduate Bianca Maibauer and technician Amy Steimke; Mary Kraus of University of Colorado, Boulder; Ursula Rohl and Thomas Westerhold of the University of Bremen, Germany; Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan; and William Clyde of the University of New Hampshire. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and the German Research Foundation.

Effects of the Paleocene-Eocene Warming

Bowen says previous research has shown that during the Paleocene-Eocene warm period, there was “enhanced storminess in some areas, increased aridity in other places. We see continent-scale migration of animals and plants, ranges are shifting. We see only a little bit of extinction – some groups of deep-sea foraminifera, one-cell organisms that go extinct at the start of this event. Not much else went extinct.”

“We see the first wave of modern mammals showing up,” including ancestral primates and hoofed animals,” he adds. Oceans became more acidic, as they are now.

“We look through time recorded in those rocks, and this warming event stands out, and everything happens together,” Bowen says. “We can look back in Earth’s history and say this is how this world works, and it’s totally consistent with the expectation that carbon dioxide change today will be associated with these other sorts of change.”

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum also points to the possibility of runaway climate change enhanced by feedbacks. “The fact we have two releases may suggest that second one was driven by the first,” perhaps, for example, if the first warming raised sea temperatures enough to melt massive amounts of frozen methane, Bowen says.

Drilling into Earth’s Past

The new study is part of a major drilling project to understand the 56-milion-year-old warming episode, which Bowen says first was discovered in 1991. The researchers drilled long, core-shaped sediment samples from two boreholes at Polecat Bench in northern Wyoming’s Bighorn Basin, east of Cody and just north of Powell.

“This site has been excavated for well over 100 years by paleontologists studying fossil mammals,” Bowen says. “It documents that transition from the early mammals we see after the extinction of the dinosaurs to Eocene mammals, which are in groups that are familiar today. There is a great stratigraphic sequence of more than 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of rocks, from 65 million years ago to 52 million years ago.”

The Paleocene-Eocene warming is recorded in the banded, flood-deposit tan and rusted red rock and soil layers of the Willwood formation, specifically within round, gray to brown-gray carbonate nodules in those rocks. They are 2 inches to 0.1 inches diameter.

By measuring carbon isotope ratios in the nodules, the researchers found that during each 1,500-year carbon release, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere declined, indicating two large releases of carbon dioxide or methane, both greenhouse gases from plant material. The decline was three parts per thousand for the first pulse, and 5.7 parts per thousand for the second.

Previous evidence from seafloor sediments elsewhere is consistent with two Paleocene-Eocene carbon pulses, which “means we don’t think this is something is unique to northern Wyoming,” Bowen says. “We think it reflects a global signal.”

What Caused the Prehistoric Warming?

The double-barreled carbon release at the Paleocene-Eocene time boundary pretty much rules out an asteroid or comet impact because such a catastrophe would have been “too quick” to explain the 1,500-year duration of each carbon pulse, Bowen says.

IMAGE: A rainbow appears over National Science Foundation-funded drilling site in Wyoming’s Bighorn Basin. In a study led by University of Utah geochemist Gabe Bowen, sediment cores drilled at the site…

Click here for more information.

Another theory: oxidation of organic matter – as permafrost thawed, as peaty soils burned or as a seaway dried up – may have caused the Paleocene-Eocene warming. But that would have taken tens of thousands of years, far slower than what the study found, he adds. Volcanoes releasing carbon gases also would have been too slow.

Bowen says the two relatively rapid carbon releases (about 1,500 years each) are more consistent with warming oceans or an undersea landslide triggering the melting of frozen methane on the seafloor and large emissions to the atmosphere, where it became carbon dioxide within decades. Another possibility is a massive intrusion of molten rock that heated overlying organic-rich rocks and released a lot of methane, he says.

###

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
245 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RoHa
December 15, 2014 3:44 pm

So we were doomed then, and we are doomed now.

Robert of Ottawa
December 15, 2014 3:59 pm

56 million years ago, the Panama Isthmus did not exist and the ocean and air currents, not to mention sea levels, would have been very different then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isthmus_of_Panama

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 15, 2014 4:00 pm

Which is to say that it wasn’t the same planet then.

mpainter
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 15, 2014 4:44 pm

Correction.
A study published this year in the GSA Bulletin shows that the Isthmus as extant in the Paleocene.

December 15, 2014 4:50 pm

If the Holocene Optimum (I don’t know why its not ‘Maximum’) is hotter than today and it happened 7-8000yrs ago and since then we have been generally cooling, then one must ask what the fuss is all about with CAGW hysteria. If we don’t warm the planet up going forward, that regular heartbeat pattern in the diagram of the ice ages will inexorably take us back to “normal”, a normal I sure wouldn’t be looking forward to. Hansen’s death trains could turn into trains of hope and survival. Oh and the Millennia to recover from the episode have already elapsed from the Optimum. I would say this normal suits just fine.

H.R.
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 15, 2014 8:47 pm

Gary Pearse wrote

If the Holocene Optimum (I don’t know why its not ‘Maximum’) is hotter than today and it happened 7-8000yrs ago and since then we have been generally cooling, then one must ask what the fuss is all about with CAGW hysteria.

It’s a money and power grab and corporate welfare and wealth redistribution scheme all rolled into one. The CAGW hysteria is just an attempt to get the masses on board with the program. You have to make believers of the marks. Some of it has worked, but as seen in Lima, it’s not going as smoothly as planned for those on top of the pyramid.
Meanwhile, some actual climate science happens from time to time, but far too little in proportion to the expenditures.

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
December 15, 2014 4:53 pm

Ok so far I read that Greenland moved away from Europe, India ran into Asia producing the Himalayas and the predecessor to the Panama Canal was a gigantic channel connecting both parts of the total ocean and there were alligator or crocs at the North Pole yet we are to blame that tiny molecule of exhaust gas for mucking up the climate back then for 200,000 years of disturbance after a couple of 1500 year outgassing events. Unhuh I get it. Must be funding time.

higley7
December 15, 2014 5:23 pm

Since no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can do what they say, this is a yawn. As any possible effects that CO2 can have on climate are already 90–95% expended, per the Lambert-Beer Law, their vastly increased CO2 in the past is simply great news for the plants and then the animals who eat the plants and then the animals that eat the animals. Everybody wins with more more CO2!
Interesting in other respects but not regarding climate. It beggars credibility to pretend that the supposed warm period was a danger to life on Earth. It’s cold that kills. In terms of how they interpret their data and their conclusions, this paper is rubbish.

john karajas
December 15, 2014 5:36 pm

There was massive volcanic activity in southeastern Europe during the Palaeocene-Eocene. Could that have been a significant source of carbon dioxide emission during that period?

December 15, 2014 5:56 pm

Great science, when your assumptions exceed your data.
Evidence presented for their faith driven conjecture?
The usual high quality data so common in Cli-Sci.AKA, I believe, thus it shall be so.
CO2 the magic gas.

Carla
December 15, 2014 7:35 pm

That temperature graph of the last 420,000 years got me thinking about the inhomogeneous interstellar background and about how carbon abundant it is, it has been said.
Wondering if the roughly 100,000 year periods are part of the inhomogeneous, interstellar background structures, the sun orbits through and gravitationally focuses gases like C,O, H, He Ne, etc. into our solar system.
Mars has an abundance of CO2 in its atmosphere also, as seen by the MAVEN spacecraft designed to orbit the Martian atmosphere.
http://youtu.be/FXhDXFN50Z8?t=10m39s
Maybe the carbon cycle belongs to an even bigger cycle…….

phlogiston
December 15, 2014 8:45 pm

The illogic of this “article” (jumbled stream of consciousness) is staggering even by CAGW standards. Leaving aside for now the pure fraud.
So the CO2 release at that time was about 10% of the current anthropogenic one. But it “caused” 5-8 degrees of warming – an order of magnitude more than the fraction of one degree of 20th century warming. And the apocalyptic consequence of this thermogeddon? Big gains in biodiversity including the origination of our own primate group. And the downside? The extinction of a few cooler-adapted deep sea foraminifera (but survival of most foraminifera).
So the PETM boosted biodiversity and led to the evolution of ourselves the primates snd humans. And in response we demonise the PETM as a pet catastrophe to use in backing up the CAGW nonsense? This all sounds like a teenager in a tantrum shouting at his/her parents “I hate you – I wish you never had me!”

phlogiston
December 15, 2014 9:23 pm

Our warmist friends have rather pathetically appealed to the notorious Shakun paper from the nest of climate fraud in Oregon. Just one of the many layers of fraud in this paper was the smearing out of the interhemispheric bipolar seesawing and the related Younger Dryas episode in order to fabricate a spurious case for CO2 leading warming – against the overwhelming evidence of the ice core records.
Sediment data shows that Antarctica began warming about 22 kYa, well before the Bolling-Allerod, YD and Holocene inception. Then a large ice sheet collapse in Antarctica triggered opposite things in the two hemispheres. In the NH the BA warming, and reciprocally (remember its the seesaw) the SH cooling called the “Antarctic cold reversal”. However 1000 years layer Antarctic intermediate water – still resulting from the ice sheet collapse – interferes with Atlantic deep circulation with the result of switching off the Atlantic meridional ocean conveyor (AMOC) which directly caused the YD northern hemisphere cooling. Reciprocally in the SH, the Antarctic cold reversal ends and Antarctic warming resumed.
Shakun, wrapping himself in the security blanket of blissful Oregonesque ignorance of the bipolar seesaw and oceanography in general, mixes about 50 proxy records together, [some] so poor that they scarcely resolve the Holocene from the preceding glacial maximum, let alone the BA and YS episodes. He fraudulently exploits the fact that during the NH-only YD cooling CO2 did not decrease due to simultaneous – and already long established – Antarctic warming. From all this proxy smearing and mixing the rabbit he pulls from his conjurer hat is an illusion of a CO2 increase during the YD preceding the Holocene inception (recall that Antarctic warming began 22 kYa). It’s all in a days work for the Oregon illusionists.

December 15, 2014 9:26 pm

Understanding the events around the PETM is a noble academic and intellectual enterprise. It may have some merit in understand how climates can rapidly change, in a general way. But to try and equate the climate changes of the PETM, and the poorly resolved timing of the methane release with anything of the last 3 Myr is beyond ludicrous.

December 15, 2014 9:39 pm

Could somebody explain the apparent contradiction in these temperature reconstructions? In Patrick Moore’s presentation (and elsewhere) it talks about global average temps being 14.5C now and 14C at the lower boundary and around 21 or 22C at the upper boundary when reconstructed over the last million years (basically we’re cold at present when viewed on that time scale event though between ice ages. In this study, this is described as a warm period with temps being up to 4C colder in previous times. I’m getting a bit confused by these reconstructions. Is it warm or cold now and how are these reconstructions reconciled?

Reply to  Hoplite
December 17, 2014 12:02 am

Either this question is too simple and is beneath posters’ dignity or too hard they can’t answer it! Either way the numbers don’t make sense to me unless the issue is something to do with the averaging period and granularity of the data used.

December 15, 2014 10:01 pm

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

This isn’t the last word, but well worth consideration. Most of all, the science is NOT settled. Climate studies are infants in science. We know nothing more than saying everything happening now in climate and weather has happened many times before.

MikeB
December 16, 2014 12:46 am

What is the graph at the top supposed to be? As others have pointed out, it has no relevance to what happened 55 million years ago.
Where does the “Today’s Temperature” line come from. It is certainly not from Petit et al as we are misdirected to believe? Why is that line, today’s temperature, some degrees below the latest samples from the ice-core? That doesn’t make any sense. Anyone got any explanations?

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  MikeB
December 16, 2014 12:52 am

MikeB
I agree that it seems a curious graph to use. However can you post the latest samples from the ice cores showing ‘todays temperatures?’
tonyb

MikeB
Reply to  climatereason
December 16, 2014 2:36 am

Hi Tony,
As I am sure you know, ice-cores say nothing about today’s temperatures; there is no useful temperature data for the past 100 years.
Petit’s Vostok ice-core data is here……
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt

Brandon Gates
Reply to  MikeB
December 16, 2014 3:26 am

MikeB,

What is the graph at the top supposed to be? As others have pointed out, it has no relevance to what happened 55 million years ago.

Eye-candy “for reference only” as in the caption. I don’t get it either, it completely threw me off at first.

Where does the “Today’s Temperature” line come from. It is certainly not from Petit et al as we are misdirected to believe?

Good eye. It certainly is Petit 1999/2001: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
The today’s temperature line is in the right spot, right through the middle of the Holocene, but the vertical axis has been rescaled, I’m guessing to match Shakun 2012 … a trick I’ve used before as well: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSbnJVLVZiRGJ5UUU
I don’t know how legit it is to scale Vostok to a more global proxy with a simple regression as I’ve done here, but at the very least one should tell people that’s what they did. Nice pull.

MikeB
Reply to  Brandon Gates
December 16, 2014 4:57 am

I read “today’s temperature’ to mean the temperature now, i.e. in the 21st century., not the median of the Holocene. I think most people would interpret as that or maybe just me.
Your first link is to the same file I linked to.
The y-axis scale has been halved because the global temperature swing between glaciations is supposedly less than the polar temperature swing. But I don’t like it either.
Here’s the real data.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
December 16, 2014 6:51 am

MikeB,

I read “today’s temperature’ to mean the temperature now, i.e. in the 21st century., not the median of the Holocene. I think most people would interpret as that or maybe just me.

It’s not just you, it’s me too. For ice core data it seems the convention is set the zero point to whatever stable isotope ratio is in the topmost layer of ice. From there I take it that it’s up to the user to decide how to line that up with whatever baseline they’re using for “present day”.

Your first link is to the same file I linked to.

Indeed, I didn’t see that post until after I sent mine.

The y-axis scale has been halved because the global temperature swing between glaciations is supposedly less than the polar temperature swing. But I don’t like it either.

UAH and RSS both show the poles having greater inter-annual and -decadal swings as well as having steeper long term trends than the mid and low latitudes, so it’s not a totally awful assumption in my book. For casual discussion purposes anyway … I’d expect literature to be more rigorous about it. Does make me wonder though about the provenance of some of the graphics I see floating around. One hopes they derive from some paper somewhere, I’ve never actually tracked one down.
The chart you posted looks exactly like the blue temperature curve in my plot.

tty
December 16, 2014 1:25 am

” The good news: Earth and most species survived.”
That is an understatement to put it mildly. There was actually no extinctions, excepting benthic foraminifera (bottom-living marine micro- organisms). Instead life on Earth flourished and spread during the PETM in a way that has never been repeated. Almost all major extant groups of mammals originated during the PETM (that in includes euprimates, i. e. us). Before the PETM very primitive primates existed only in North America. The PETM made it possible for them to diversify and spread to other continents. Primates in North American subsequently died out when climate became colder but survived elsewhere. So in a very real sense humans only exist thanks to the PETM.

tty
December 16, 2014 2:11 am

Phlogiston says:
“He fraudulently exploits the fact that during the NH-only YD cooling CO2 did not decrease due to simultaneous – and already long established – Antarctic warming.”
Very high-definition and well-dated data from the WAIS Divide that have recently become available show a rather complex and interesting pattern in the CO2 concentrations during the Late Glacial.
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7524/fig_tab/nature13799_F2.html)
At the abrupt warmings at the beginning of Bölling/Alleröd and the Holocene the CO2 levels change in a consistent but rather strange way. Both times the CO2 record first shows a short sharp decrease, then rise fairly rapidly for a few centuries, and then go flat for a millennium or so. On the other hand, at the inception of the (cold) YD the flat CO2 level during the Alleröd is succeeded by a slow rise that continues during the YD, until the decline/rise/flat couplet described above.
So, while CO2 generally speaking increases from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago, the temperature and CO2 do not follow a similar pattern. CO2 does not lead temperatures, and often go in opposite directions for century- to millennium-long periods. CH4 levels on the other hand do track temperatures, probably because they are determined by simple temperature-dependent biological production and outgassing. CO2 dynamics are clearly much more complex, probably because of multiple source and sinks with different responses and lag times.
Recent

phlogiston
Reply to  tty
December 16, 2014 9:55 am

tty
Very interesting data, thanks. So the actual “moment” of the start of steep warming in both the BA and Holocene is accompanied by a short decrease in CO2. Lets see how that one gets explained.
The slow rise of CO2 during the YD is evidently linked to Antarctic ocean warming at the same time (there is more ocean volume in the SH than NH).
I’ll have a look at the paper you linked. Here are the references to the bipolar seesawing around the YD.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97GL02658/pdf
http://rockbox.rutgers.edu/~jdwright/GlobalChange/Weaveretal_Science_2007.pdf
The complexity of CO2’s response to temperature creates opportunities for tortuous stories to be weaved trying to prove causation where there is none.

tty
December 16, 2014 2:26 am

By the way since this story is based on yet another thrashy University press release that doesn’t bother to mention where the actual paper was published, here it is (paywalled of course):
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2316.html

tty
December 16, 2014 3:09 am

Have read the Supplementary Information which is free and the whole thing now looks rather shaky. The “Short Double Pulse model” is based completely on analysis of soil nodule carbonates in two drill cores. It can be very tricky to determine whether deposition is continuous in a core where larger-scale sedimentary structures are invisible, and it doesn’t seem as if they have confirmed the result by studying a comparable outcrop. Floodplain sedimentation can be very complex (particularily so in a rapidly changing climate), and the fact that the “pause” is apparently lithologically distinct from the “Pre Onset Excursion” (POE) and the main “Carbon Isotope Excursion” (CIE) below and above is definitely suspect. If there was actually a several thousand year long “recovery” during the onset of the CIE it is very odd that this has not showed up in any of the many high-definition marine cores from the PETM, where continuous sedimentation is much more assured.

mpainter
Reply to  tty
December 16, 2014 5:44 am

Good comment. Once again a funded climate study based on dubious proxies from which are drawn dubious conclusions.
The PETM is of much interest and this sort of dubious science adds nothing to our understanding.

Old England
December 16, 2014 3:23 am

Am I correct in assuming that this is intended to Over-Write all of the previous research which showed that CO2 levels rose circa 700 years after temperatures ?

Mervyn
December 16, 2014 4:06 am

Ok … looking at the chart, irrespective of one’s views about the validity of a greenhouse effect or whatever, even a scientific simpleton can see some sort of cycle is at play in the earth’s climate system.
Heck, even on a much shorter 2000 year time scale, a simpleton can see some sort of cycle is at play – Roman Warm Period … Dark Ages Cold Period … Medieval Warm Period … Little Ice Age …
What this demonstrates is that the climate has changed again and again without any help from human emissions of CO2, and in fact, nobody looking at the geologic data would even suspect CO2, in general, has ever played a role in changing earth’s climate in the past.
So why do people place so much faith in climate model predictions that human CO2, responsible for only about 0.12% of the greenhouse effect, is the key driver of climate change?
Even a simpleton can see this is an outrageous claim.

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Mervyn
December 16, 2014 7:20 am

I agree wholeheartedly. I would further this perspective by asking, ‘If CO2 causes such warmth, why does re-glaciation happen each time CO2 is at its peak level in the ice cores?

emsnews
December 16, 2014 6:02 am

What is a million times scarier is the graph with this story: repeatedly, for more than a million years, we have had a yo-yo climate which is mainly very cold and with sudden, regular warm periods all of which end totally abruptly, like going off a cliff into the much longer Ice Ages.
The pitiful amounts of CO2 won’t prevent this event since it appears to be driven by the sun.

MikeB
Reply to  emsnews
December 16, 2014 6:28 am

It’s not the Sun exactly.
The variations are called Milankovitch cycles and are due to changes in the ecentricity of the in the Earth’s orbit and its axial tilt and precession.
We are currently in an ice age, have been for about 3 million years, and the warm periods like the one we are experiencing now are called inter-glacials. They repeat about every 100,000 years.
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/holmes-1myears.png
Yes, and its not CO2.that drives this.

December 16, 2014 7:00 am

With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that propose what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

Mr. J
December 16, 2014 10:23 am

This study shows the Earth doesn’t fry during warming. And it also shows that all of these “predicted” AGW scenarios are not true. If this was real science they would go on and say “You have nothing to worry about, the world won’t end due to warming” but no, this is about money and (corrupt) politics so that won’t happen, sadly. Every “finding” they get about past climate they twist it to support their CAGW doomsday theories.

December 16, 2014 11:08 am

9˚ to 15˚ F temperature increase for 200,000 years, fantastic! That will erase the next two glaciations (guaranteed killers) and give us 200,000 years to develop fusion and other forms of energy so that the future glaciations 3, 4, 5 . . . won’t matter. Good work guys. Now take a well deserved vacation then come back and redirect your efforts to ensure sustaining of the current levels of man made production of CO2 (and/or methane) and the planet will be saved.

December 16, 2014 11:20 am

Quoted from above:

““We see the first wave of modern mammals showing up,” including ancestral primates and hoofed animals,” he adds. Oceans became more acidic, as they are now.”

You would think these geochemists would be a little more careful in their communications since they must realized the bulk pH of the modern oceans is around 8.10 – 8.15. They also must realize that the massive amounts of solid calcium carbonate deposits exposed to submarine seawater on the continental shelves and the vast basaltic plains of the abyssal oceans will buffer the carbonic acid inputs of rising pCO2 to prevent any wholesale pH “acidification” swings.
So why do they still hang onto the ocean acidification rhetoric? Needing to keep the research grant money flowing is the only answer I can come up with.