When the Washington Post set out to map 485 million years of global temperatures, they uncovered an inconvenient truth in the climate change story: Earth’s been on a 50-million-year cool-down. ZeroHedgehas more:
In recent years, particularly around mid-July (the peak of the Northern Hemisphere summer), there has been a noticeable surge in headlines featuring the “hottest day” ever on record in corporate media outlets – which is of course pushed by climate alarmist journalists citing questionable studies. This timing coincides with hot weather, so naturally, it’s quite convincing to persuade readers that the world’s oceans are boiling and planet Earth will ignite into a fireball unless drastic actions are taken – such as more climate taxes, ‘carbon credits’, banning cow farts, prohibiting new petrol-powered vehicle sales by X date and pushing spending bills to procure more solar panels from China, to save the planet.
The problem is that corporate media only focuses on recent history – and not “in context” (as they love to say). Context is particularly important when it comes to climate change – as their narrative collapses when looking at a long enough timeline.
To wit… a funny thing happened when the Washington Post tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the “disaster of global warming” …
A funny thing happened as the WaPo tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the "disaster of global warming" pic.twitter.com/HA6yxpf9V7
WaPo journalists cited a new study about Earth’s global surface temperatures over the last 485 million years. In 2023, Earth’s average temperature reached 14.98°C, well below the average 36°C the study showed around 100 million years ago. The trend shows Earth’s temperatures have been sliding for 50 million years. …
Maybe, just maybe, the level of human-caused global warming doom porn pushed by the Government, corporate media outlets, global NGOs and far-Left billionaires is not as apocalyptic as they make it sound.
Most assuredly Nick, we did not have to feed 7 billion people back then, nor even one since people had not been invented. But the earth did feed billions of dinosaurs and billions more of everything else including vast forests, so much in fact during the Carbonaceous that immense coal beds were accumulated from the detritus. And then there is oil and gas from other periods and their detritus as well, all left over from living stuff. I bet we can figure it out don’t ya think?
Good point – warmer weather prolongs the growing season and allows us to grow crops in areas that used to be too cool. Higher CO2 levels also make plants grow faster. Also, looking at the increases and decreases in the graph, clearly, warming and cooling trends (which your models don’t have a clue about) happen since time began.
Supposedly, the global population exceeded 8 billion in 2022.
Anyway, the temperature of the earth today is not significantly different from what it was in 1900 and is within normal variability. Truth be told, the longer term trend of cooling is more concerning. The Minoans and Romans enjoyed their warmer climates.
Who is we? Don’t most people feed themselves? “We” sounds like the top down system recommended by Karl Marx and implemented by Stalin. Stupid idea. One world government sounds a lot scarier than a couple degrees.
It is hard to “Save the Earth” when 8 billion people can’t even talk to each other because they still speak different languages.
One world government for tribal humans is a fantasy for the future until that happens. Don’t hold your breath, because its still hard to understand different dialects in the same language and that must be done first.
Nothing like high technology, highly efficient farming has happened before, either. Nothing like the transistor either, for that matter (except the vacuum tube triode).
Nothing like that has happened before happens all the time in a technologically advanced society. It sounds alarming but it’s a nothing argument.
Feeding 7 billion people is likely to be harder if the temperature continues to drop, especially at the latitudes that support the growing of wheat and other grains. The UK can’t support wine grapes any more.
Not your demographic:
“In 2021, Zippa, the Career Expert, reported that 82.2 percent of all winemakers were male with 17.8 percent female.”
and
“57% of U.S. wine consumers are women, well above the female population share of 52%.”
It seems like some commenters on WUWT don’t appear to appreciate contrarian opinions. I don’t agree with Nick Stokes’ views but, like Voltaire, I’ll support his right to express his views – and to be treated curteously. Debating only with like-minded people can be a bit boring. If you want people on climate alarmists websites to treat you curteously, do the same for the likes of Nick Stokes on this site.
If you stop and think for just a while, it becomes clear that each moment in time is unique, as the universe is expanding.
So, “nothing like that has ever happened before” is a hard rule of physics as we know it. Of course it hasn’t happened before, because every moment is always a new moment.
We have 7 billion people to feed. Nothing like that has happened before.
This is a good metric to determine the impact of the current warming for humans. And crop outputs have improved and are continuing to improve.
Your issue is fear. You’re not alone.
Having said all that, its imperative we move away from fossil fuels which are running out more quickly than many people here believe. But its equally imperative we do it at the right pace and for the right reasons.
The right pace should be determined by the market place.
Not for energy. We’ve seen what happens when demand outstrips supply for energy in society, its chaos. Consider what would happen if demand outstripped supply on a permanent and increasing basis.
The market place is the right solution for determining the form of renewable energy used but not the pace.
When we REALLY run out of fossil fuels, their price will go up. Meanwhile, alternatives will compete on price. When the alternatives are price competitive, without subsidies, they’ll become the dominant energy sources.
When we REALLY run out of fossil fuels, their price will go up.
At that point it will be much, MUCH too late. Its taken us 20+ years to get to where we are now with considerable financial incentive.
Do you seriously think an energy starved world will be in any place to smoothly transition? And what of the poor in that world?
Meanwhile, alternatives will compete on price. When the alternatives are price competitive, without subsidies, they’ll become the dominant energy sources.
Without incentives, alternatives will get no sales, no market penetration and no R&D funding and will go nowhere. We’ve had 20+ years of intensive R&D which wouldn’t have happened if the transition was left to market forces.
The world will transition with alternatives that are effective. Incentives are not the way to sustain alternatives, especially when they are ineffective and wildly expensive.
The world will transition with alternatives that are effective.
The world IS transitioning with alternatives that are less effective than fossil fuels.
Incentives are not the way to sustain alternatives, especially when they are ineffective and wildly expensive.
Historically we’ve transitioned from less effective and less convenient energy sources to more effective energy sources (eg. wood to coal to oil) but renewables are arguably less effective and definitely more expensive.
We have nuclear energy which would make good base load but we’re not choosing it.
Beyond that, we have no obvious alternatives. There is nothing on the horizon either, practical fusion is still a dream at best.
All known energy futures (including fusion) need incentive for R&D and implementation experience for learnings if nothing else.
The trigger for change is innovation and technology.
Sure. That will be the trigger to change away from path we’re taking. But it hasn’t happened yet despite people trying to innovate in the energy space.
We all hope something like practical fusion will appear but meanwhile we understand that the current path may end up being the only practical path even though innovation and technology will refine it along the way.
What is known about atmospheric surface pressure in those days? Is it a myth that those huge animals would not be able to carry around their body in today’s pressure conditions?
Max modern glacial advancement occurred about 1750….Little Ice Age ended about 1860. It seems the elites of the day made the correct decision to burn witches at the stake to improve the weather and crops. You just can’t argue with climate facts.
Nick
why are humans hairless and have the best cooling system in the animal kingdom. Also why can’t we survive even moderate winters in temperate zone with out modifying our environment.
Modern Human started in HOT Africa and was there 200,000 years before they finally left Africa in several migration waves starting around 120- 60,000 years ago into much cooler areas that shows how adaptive they are.
Without clothing and shelter humans do very poorly in colder temperatures. Below about 17C and you won’t survive a week without shelter and clothing, you’ll end up with hypothermia, likely within the first day and perish.
The thermoneutral zone for humans is 20 degrees C (18 if you’re well padded) to 30 degrees C.
Above 30, we need to shed heat (mostly by sweating), and below 20 we need to increase our metabolic rate to generate more heat or insulate ourselves to reduce heat loss.
Your desperation is obvious because you overlook that H. Sapiens manage to live in HOT Africa for at least 100,000 years before they expanded into the north and east out of HOT Africa.
All Humans were trapped in Africa because of the desert conditions in northern Africa. Without access to water they were stuck. Warmer conditions allowed several migrations through corridors the Nile Valley and Sinai or what is now the Red Sea. There were several failed attempts at dispersal before humans made it past what is now the middle east permanently.
Most of the problems until this interglacial were down to Neanderthals being better able to cope with iceage conditions than modern humans whose predecessors tended to die out without leaving many traces as surviving in the cold dry conditions and competition was too much of a struggle.
Interesting. Of course, one should consider that the average annual temperature of the State of Maine is about 42F or about 10F below whatever that magic number of 51.8F is supposed to mean. Also, the average annual temperature of The State of Florida is about 72F, about 20 degrees higher. Yet the people of Maine and Florida both seem quite well fed, no?
Sometime in the 1960’s a physiologist studied basal metabolic rate shifts in Native Brits going to India and native Indians returning from England. She found that the Brits showed a greater decrease in BMR than the Indians on adapting to South India – have lost the reprint.
Much later there were some animal experiments that indicated cold exposure of infants improved adult adaption to heat. This reminded me of my mother telling of covering sleeping babies with newspaper in Belfast winter. I guess my brothers are very heat tolerant as a result.
Modern humans didn’t flourish until the present interglacial warming around 10,000 years ago. They nearly died off before that, and actually did die off in the glacial areas.
Nick wants to imply that he and his team are concerned about human flourishing, but we all know the truth that the climate nihilists are for anything and everything that leads to human misery, death, and lower population.
But people from the cold north can adapt after a few years to living in most warm areas. Having spent 9 years in a warmer climate I’m still finding the East Midlands of England a bit on the cold side even after 3 years.
The headwaters for two important rivers are just miles apart along the border between the Dakotas and Minnesota – the Minnesota and Red rivers. The Red flows north into Hudson Bay, and the Minnesota flows south into the Gulf of Mexico. The Minnesota River Valley – the Valley of the Jolly Green Giant – is an important agricultural feedstock for the nation. If you were to drive along rural highways of the Minnesota River Valley today, it would seem like you were in a tunnel the corn stalks are so high. The Red River Valley isn’t so. – it’s too cold.
A few degrees warmer might make Canada a great agricultural producer, too, which would be just fine for human civilization and Canada, too.
Southern Texas may have to change basic crops better adapted to higher temperature. Other than that, not a lot of change. Especially if it is nighttime temps that get higher.
Canada is an excellent agricultural producer ($99.1B); one of the largest exporters in the world. Solely due to climate change… Most of Canada was under 2 miles of ice until 16,000 years ago.
More warming would extend our growing season and perhaps bring agriculture a little more north, but not much. The majority of what prevents more farms is the mountains and forests.
Primates came into existence during the Eocene, and they and most mammals thrived during the warmth of the Eocene. Humans survive well in the tropics without the need for air conditioning, and little need for the warmth of fires. Many of the problems with heat in the mid-latitudes are the result of not adapting buildings to the heat, unlike in Spain.
When I fly back to Calgary from Europe, after passing over Greenland we enter North America and fly for hours over empty nothing.
imagine how much food you could up there if only it was a little warmer hey Nick?
it’s obvious to many that increasing temps are likely to continue to be positive
36 degrees C is very close to the body temperature of most endotherms. That tends to indicate it is an optimal temperature for the chemical reactions occurring.
Birds run a little warmer than mammals.
Nick, if you believe that humans live better when it’s cold, then I don’t think we live on the same planet.
A study by astronomers showed that the optimum planetary temperature for life is five degrees C warmer than Earth.
The Little Ice Age was a very bad time for humanity. Storms were far worse. Human bones dating from the LIA were smaller compared to the MWP and today.
Why do you think that the first human civilisations arose after the Holocene warming, and not before?
Cold kills far, far more people than heat.
Over several years, whenever I came across a date for the extinction of a great civilisation, e.g. in a documentary, I would compare the date with the graph of an ice core. Without exception, every extinction date corresponded almost spookily with a significant cold period.
Over the last century, during the peak of global warming, the wellbeing of mankind (e.g. the OECD human wellbeing index) has dramatically increased.
Yes, there is a serious problem with global warming. There isn’t enough of it.
Chris
the level of human-caused global warming doom porn pushed by the Government, corporate media outlets, global NGOs and far-Left billionaires is not as apocalyptic as they make it sound.
Fascists treat far left and far right ideologues as just useful idiots.
Fascists just want to commandeer or entice private production resources into government (i.e. Fascists) control, so they can be like the pigs in Animal Farm, and be “more equal than others”.
Left and right are just made-up categories. The true dichotomy is collectives versus free associations.
Collectives are all ideological and can take the form of socialism, fascism, or theism. No one is free to leave. Privileges accrue only with submission to the collective morality, Enemies are manufactured to curry loyalty and meaning. “Right” is one such manufactured enemy.
Free associations are necessarily made up of individuals. Rules of order are negotiated, All are free to leave. Individuals have autonomous rights. Individuals grant with the perceived benefits of association.
Collectives are intrinsically hostile to external entities (unbelievers). Free association societies are always initially welcoming (tit for tat).
What you are saying certainly applies to Communists (in the short/medium term) but Fascists? Who controlled the factories in Mussolini’s Italy? As for Germany, the Krupps did very well out of German re-armament but any form of government control only occured during the war and that happened to a large extent in wartime Britain. Was Churchill a Fascist?
Just for the record, for Marxists, Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. During the Socialist stage the state owns the means of production. In the Communist era, the state disappears. In the countries run by Communist Parties, the Communist era, of course, never arrived.
Money is always an exchange for goods and services that everyone will accept. It used to also be a storehouse of wealth as well and was worth capturing as natural resources, gold, silver and jewels.
Nowadays its just a digital bit stored on some computer somewhere. It is backed by nuclear weapons. You will accept our currency or else. Therefore, All natural resources, gold, silver and jewels are negotiable.
For some, the more successful they are as capitalist the less they want capitalism, much like an elected leader who wants to abolish future elections to stay in power. They want no competition. They want power and control. Their thinking is along the lines of: I am mega-wealthy; clearly I’m a genius; I need to save the peons from themselves by telling them how they must live. To do that I must control prices and production.
“Where are the glacial/interglacial periods of the last 2 million years??”
It’s a different resolution. The reconstruction is covering 500 million years. The resolution is a few million years. Inter-glacial periods are just a few thousand years.
The graphs you posted further down show that the planet is colder than any time in the last 250 million years.
They also clearly show the planet is currently in a “coldhouse” climate state and that we need to get to a period somewhat warmer to push CO2 levels up to 800ppm…(transitional)
We can only hope.
—–
“Inter-glacial periods are just a few thousand years”.
Aren’t we so exceptionally LUCKY to be living in a brief inter-glacial at the moment…
… even though we are at the cold end of the Holocene inter-glacial, just above full ice age temperature levels.
What does any of this rant have to do with the point I was making? Do you agree or disagree that that the graph is meaningless because it doesn’t show the inter-glacial periods?
And time acts like a low-pass filter, meaning that temperature peaks in the past are suppressed. The only fair way to judge the past is to use modern proxies similar to what was used to construct former temperatures. Even with that, modern temperatures are cooled because of the lapse rate. As mountain ranges are eroded away, any evidence of their former temperatures tend to be destroyed. Paleo-temperatures are biased to oceans and low-lying swampy areas. Comparing modern instrumental records to ancient proxies is the classic case of comparing apples to oranges.
It’s a different resolution. The reconstruction is covering 500 million years. The resolution is a few million years. Inter-glacial periods are just a few thousand years.
Which drives home the point that it’s completely meaningless and useless.
Why do so many here think that just because something doesn’t tell you everything, it must be meaningless?
Bob
September 22, 2024 2:43 pm
The mainstream media has no credibility, academia has no credibility, NGOs have no credibility and government has no credibility. They all have a whale of a lot of work to do to gain our trust again. They are bad.
They never used to be. Government employees were historically regarded as civil servants whose mere presence in the hallowed halls required an unbeholden position to any political group. Also, there were no trades working in government, and the idea of service unions wasn’t in existence yet.
Remember, unions were supposed to add value to manufactured items because of skill. There really is no such thing as a skilled maid, a skilled coffee pourer, a skilled dishwasher or other menial jobs that children can do.
The Andean-Saharan and Karoo ice ages are supposed to have been established as having occurred withing this period (Andean-Saharan:460 Ma to 420 Ma; Karoo: 360Ma tp 260 Ma).
Are we to believe those periods were far warmer than today?
“they uncovered an inconvenient truth in the climate change story”
What’s inconvenient about it? It’s pretty much what other reconstructions over that time period show. It’s consistent with models. It has to be seeing as it’s based on climate models.
I wasn’t criticizing the Washington Post Article. I’ve not read it. I’m just questioning why so many posts here only refer to newspaper articles, and imply it’s the newspapers that produced the science, rather than just reported it.
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with this reconstruction? So far the comments from “skeptics” seem to be split between those claiming this is an accurate “true” reconstruction, and those calling it junk.
Either way, the fact that it seems to be a shock to you that we are currently in a cold period on a geological time frame, suggests you are are not the expert on climate you claim to be.
This new WaPo article is evidently a result of the recent editorial and staff cutbacks due to losses even Bezos cannot afford. So, they post fact rather than alarmist opinion. Not enough upper layers to modify anymore.
Because, in July 2023, “Massive floods. Record heat. Extreme ocean temps. Forest fires out of control…Climate alarm bells ringing.”
Because, in June 2024, “The climate disaster is already here.”
For all of my years in Colorado, I would rate 2024’s weather as perhaps the most mild, even if I have had to wear slippers and use an electric blanket.
It has been pretty mild in Kansas. A really nice summer, in fact.
bdgwx
September 22, 2024 3:29 pm
Interesting. The PETM was an 8-12 C rise in the [Judd et al. 2024] study. And that was with the Earth already 10 C higher than it is today. Judd et al. do not mince words in their conclusions.
“There is a strong relationship between PhanDA GMST and CO2, indicating that CO2 is the dominant control on Phanerozoic climate.”
“The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant “apparent” Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ∼8°C, with no detectable dependence on whether the climate is warm or cold.”
“CO2 is the dominant driver of Phanerozoic climate, emphasizing the importance of this greenhouse gas in shaping Earth history.”
“Atmospheric CO2 exerts a dominant control on GMST, both today and in the geologic past.”
I always advocate for a measured and pragmatic approach when examining the body of evidence. Being an outlier in terms of CO2’s warming potential I think it is prudent to consider this study with a skeptical lens.
BTW…I was surprised when I saw this article appear on WUWT; nevermind doing so with at least an implicit showing of support to the underlying study. I wonder if the WUWT reviewers fully understood what they were approving?
“There is a strong relationship between PhanDA GMST and CO2, indicating that CO2 is the dominant control on Phanerozoic climate.” Of course the ice core records going back about 800,000 years show quite uniformly that CO2 change always lags temperature change. Where is the evidence that this pattern did not hold during earlier times?
They conclude that CO2 drives temperature based on a ‘close relationship’ between the two. However, it’s more likely that temperature is the driving force, not CO2.
It is instructive to consider the topography and chemical weathering occurring during the Eocene. Nobody talks about what the relief was like during these ‘hot house’ events.
It is indeed inconvenient to the AGW shills, to find out that our carbon based planet is far colder now than it has been for most of the last many millions of years.
That may be true, but Richard Eldred and Zerohedge are describing the findings of the study which state that those feedbacks will result in 8 C of warming from 2xCO2 as an “inconvenient truth” and “shocking truth”.
Eight degrees total warming from 1.5 degrees of CO2 warming? Why didn’t the medieval period hit 8 degrees of warming? Warmer during the Roman and Minoan periods, but without 8 degrees of positive feedback. Makes no sense.
Yes it’s cold now. That’s what has always been known, that’s what this reconstruction suggests. Is this news to you?
“Even if CO2 did cause warming (and not the other way round…)”
It does but it’s not an “either/or”.
“.. we obviously need to get the level up to 600 to be anything but a “coldhouse”“
You you’ve lost the argument when you resort to bold type. Just because something is “obvious” to you doesn’t means it’s correct. It might well be obvious to you that the world is flat, and the center of the universe. But on past form I wouldn’t want to take your word for it.
Why do you think it’s imperative that we increase CO2 to levels not seen in the past 10 million years? Given that all of human evolution and civilization has happened under these colder temperatures, it’s not clear how these cold conditions were holding us back.
“You have just destroyed the whole anti-CO2 scam in one graph..“
Oh, isn’t he bold.
Seriously, crediting me with that graph is nonsense. I merely copied it from the Science article, something you could have done yourself if you were capable of following links. As to why you think a single graph destroys the idea we should cut back on CO2 emissions, then you just haven’t been paying attention.
“Well done, idiot !! . !!”
You have to admire the lengths bnice will go to, to demonstrate he’s a troll. If it is his intention to send up the true WUWT supporters, I can’t think of a better way then ending every comment with personal abuse followed by four exclamation marks.
Most of human development happened during the Holocene Optimum and the warmer spikes of the RWP and MWP.. The cold period were difficult for humans
Fortunately, up until this moronic anti-CO2 scam, humans found that they could have RELIABLE energy supplies from fossil fuels so the current “slightly tepid” period is much easier to cope with.
Hint…. You need to add more whine to your whinge to make your meaningless points better.. (in your own mind, anyway)
It doesn’t explain everything. All it’s saying is you can explain the reduction in CO2 entirely by the reduction in temperature. (Except it doesn’t even say that, but allows that there was a lot of additional perturbations in CO2 levels). But that doesn’t result in the conclusion that therefore you do not need CO2 to affect temperature.
Your and Frank’s “causation backwards” argument is just a false dichotomy. You are claiming that either temperatures cause CO2 levels or CO2 levels cause temperature – but it can’t be both.
As to this being a parsimonious hypothesis, I’d disagree. In order for it to work you have to explain the large drop in temperatures over the last 60 million years, and if you exclude CO2 as a reason, you have to introduce another assumption – hence it’s not parsimonious.
In this case he hypothesizes magmatism might have been a cause. But his own arguments don’t add up. His calculations, based on some dubious assumptions, result in at most about 5K of warming, but the fall in temperatures over the last 60 million years has been around 20K.
Hmmm, you can claim a straight line curve fit through the blue Cenozoic dots, but the Mesozoic and Paleozoic are too scattered to say there exists a fit….and 1 out of 3 isn’t a winner…
You do realise that both the temperature and the CO2 are not measurements but are calculated from proxies and are based on a whole set of assumptions, mostly unverifiable?
Joe
September 22, 2024 5:38 pm
we have had a whole generation of stupid science in which every climate event was attributed to SUV CO2 emissions
The major events are probably linked to continental positions and their impact of ocean currents. Milankovitch cycles modulate the prevalent situation
SMS
September 22, 2024 8:12 pm
It had to be farting dinosaurs. There were no SUV’s.
KevinM
September 23, 2024 8:31 am
Feels like after about 30 years, the paradigm is shifting. The guys who started it must be retiring.
While one might concur with the general findings and it may reinforce the dominant viewpoint on this site, one needs to take this paper with a grain (or even a large bag) of salt.
This temperature chart is not based on empirical data but rather on calculated figures based on proxies, and those calculations are based on a whole set of assumptions and theories, most of which cannot be independently validated. Instead, they are “validated” by comparing them with other such calculations. This is in fact not validation but confirmation bias.
They say in their paper “...we present PhanDA, a state-of-the-art reconstruction of GMST spanning the last 485 million years of Earth history. PhanDA is based on paleoclimate data assimilation (DA), which statistically combines proxy data with ESM simulations…” and “We reconstruct Phanerozoic GMST using an offline ensemble Kalman filter method to assimilate proxy and model information.” How is this different from the various absurd GCM’s using other models’ projections as data and copying each other’s modelling assumptions with the end result being they are all in lock-step to the same erroneous conclusion.
What is also telling is the error band. It is so narrow as to be laughable and should have been a klaxon warning to anybody reading this paper. The further back in time you go, the wider and wider this error band should be.
“In 2023, Earth’s average temperature reached 14.98°C, well below the average 36°C the study showed around 100 million years ago.”
So 36°C was good for dinosaurs. But would it be good for human civilisation?
Why wouldn’t it? In any case we have a long way to go before it’s even a question worth asking seeing as how we’re currently at about 12C.
We have 7 billion people to feed. Nothing like that has happened before.
Most assuredly Nick, we did not have to feed 7 billion people back then, nor even one since people had not been invented. But the earth did feed billions of dinosaurs and billions more of everything else including vast forests, so much in fact during the Carbonaceous that immense coal beds were accumulated from the detritus. And then there is oil and gas from other periods and their detritus as well, all left over from living stuff. I bet we can figure it out don’t ya think?
Good point – warmer weather prolongs the growing season and allows us to grow crops in areas that used to be too cool. Higher CO2 levels also make plants grow faster. Also, looking at the increases and decreases in the graph, clearly, warming and cooling trends (which your models don’t have a clue about) happen since time began.
Supposedly, the global population exceeded 8 billion in 2022.
Anyway, the temperature of the earth today is not significantly different from what it was in 1900 and is within normal variability. Truth be told, the longer term trend of cooling is more concerning. The Minoans and Romans enjoyed their warmer climates.
The question is if we could have fed 8 billion in 1900 or during Utopia 1850 ?
No, but we can do it now due to the use of fossil fuels.
Probably could have though almost everyone would have been a farmer.
Who is we? Don’t most people feed themselves? “We” sounds like the top down system recommended by Karl Marx and implemented by Stalin. Stupid idea. One world government sounds a lot scarier than a couple degrees.
It is hard to “Save the Earth” when 8 billion people can’t even talk to each other because they still speak different languages.
One world government for tribal humans is a fantasy for the future until that happens. Don’t hold your breath, because its still hard to understand different dialects in the same language and that must be done first.
Nothing like high technology, highly efficient farming has happened before, either. Nothing like the transistor either, for that matter (except the vacuum tube triode).
Nothing like that has happened before happens all the time in a technologically advanced society. It sounds alarming but it’s a nothing argument.
One thing is sure, lots of people in history became blind from chipping rocks to make tools. But no one has ever said to stop making tools.
Feeding 7 billion people is likely to be harder if the temperature continues to drop, especially at the latitudes that support the growing of wheat and other grains. The UK can’t support wine grapes any more.
Yes, the growing season is defined by the last and first killing frost of the year.
Just curious- but is it really the case that you can’t grow wine crops in the UK, or is it just that few people want to?
Not your demographic:
“In 2021, Zippa, the Career Expert, reported that 82.2 percent of all winemakers were male with 17.8 percent female.”
and
“57% of U.S. wine consumers are women, well above the female population share of 52%.”
About 700 commercial vineyards in England and Wales.
https://www.gbvg.uk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom
Oh, just STFU you tedious a-hole.
Every village needs an idiot, and on WUWT it’s Nick Stokes.
It seems like some commenters on WUWT don’t appear to appreciate contrarian opinions. I don’t agree with Nick Stokes’ views but, like Voltaire, I’ll support his right to express his views – and to be treated curteously. Debating only with like-minded people can be a bit boring. If you want people on climate alarmists websites to treat you curteously, do the same for the likes of Nick Stokes on this site.
Nick is welcome to make stupid comments.
We are welcome to mock him.
He is supporting a far-left idiotology that seeks to bring down western society.
There is no need to be polite to him, unless you are either a weak apologist, or in cohorts with him.
Agreed. It’s also tiresome to read the same negative emotional reaction _every_time_.
I would be less rude if his comments actually had merit.rather than pushing a vicious Malthusian agenda.
“Nothing like that has happened before.“
So the VAST regions of the NH… Mongolia, Canada etc that become warm enough to grow crops will be of massive benefit to the world’s population.
Is that what you meant to say, Nick ??
If you stop and think for just a while, it becomes clear that each moment in time is unique, as the universe is expanding.
So, “nothing like that has ever happened before” is a hard rule of physics as we know it. Of course it hasn’t happened before, because every moment is always a new moment.
This is a good metric to determine the impact of the current warming for humans. And crop outputs have improved and are continuing to improve.
Your issue is fear. You’re not alone.
Having said all that, its imperative we move away from fossil fuels which are running out more quickly than many people here believe. But its equally imperative we do it at the right pace and for the right reasons.
Nick’s issue is a total lack of any grasp on reality. !
The right pace should be determined by the market place.
Not for energy. We’ve seen what happens when demand outstrips supply for energy in society, its chaos. Consider what would happen if demand outstripped supply on a permanent and increasing basis.
The market place is the right solution for determining the form of renewable energy used but not the pace.
Go take a college course in economics 101.
Educate me then. How do you see the market place setting the pace. What is the trigger for change?
When we REALLY run out of fossil fuels, their price will go up. Meanwhile, alternatives will compete on price. When the alternatives are price competitive, without subsidies, they’ll become the dominant energy sources.
At that point it will be much, MUCH too late. Its taken us 20+ years to get to where we are now with considerable financial incentive.
Do you seriously think an energy starved world will be in any place to smoothly transition? And what of the poor in that world?
Without incentives, alternatives will get no sales, no market penetration and no R&D funding and will go nowhere. We’ve had 20+ years of intensive R&D which wouldn’t have happened if the transition was left to market forces.
The world will transition with alternatives that are effective. Incentives are not the way to sustain alternatives, especially when they are ineffective and wildly expensive.
The world IS transitioning with alternatives that are less effective than fossil fuels.
Historically we’ve transitioned from less effective and less convenient energy sources to more effective energy sources (eg. wood to coal to oil) but renewables are arguably less effective and definitely more expensive.
We have nuclear energy which would make good base load but we’re not choosing it.
Beyond that, we have no obvious alternatives. There is nothing on the horizon either, practical fusion is still a dream at best.
All known energy futures (including fusion) need incentive for R&D and implementation experience for learnings if nothing else.
Sure. That will be the trigger to change away from path we’re taking. But it hasn’t happened yet despite people trying to innovate in the energy space.
We all hope something like practical fusion will appear but meanwhile we understand that the current path may end up being the only practical path even though innovation and technology will refine it along the way.
The trigger for change is innovation and technology.
The dinosaurs grew so large precisely because there was a lot more food back then.
My thoughts too
What is known about atmospheric surface pressure in those days? Is it a myth that those huge animals would not be able to carry around their body in today’s pressure conditions?
Gravity is the dominant factor. Air pressure much less.
No problem. In fact in the West the birth rate has declined alarmingly.We need more people not less. Besides, plenty of bugs to eat..
Quite right, apart from the bugs! Strange then that the Pope was ridiculed recently for suggesting that people might have more babies.
White babies.
Very easy question: is there a chance in hell we could feed 7 billion people with out fossil fuels?
Sure. We could use nuclear power instead.
CAGW afficionados seem to believe the Little Ice Age was some lost, edenic era, rather than being an era of plague, famine, and war.
There be lots of witches in the LIA too.
Witch trials, you mean? Like the punchline to a bad joke goes—oh 35? Ain’t you a bit old to believe in witches?
Max modern glacial advancement occurred about 1750….Little Ice Age ended about 1860. It seems the elites of the day made the correct decision to burn witches at the stake to improve the weather and crops. You just can’t argue with climate facts.
/s
Don’t forget the prayers by Swiss priests
Dunno Nick.
Ask the 2 Biden dinosaurs.
Nick
why are humans hairless and have the best cooling system in the animal kingdom. Also why can’t we survive even moderate winters in temperate zone with out modifying our environment.
I’m losing hair all the time and have begun wearing a hat more often. I wouldn’t say I’m hairless, however.
Interestingly, even whales today have remnant hair follicles.
Of course. All mammals have hair. Even armadillos.
Here is what the WP went on to show about that graph:
Modern Human started in HOT Africa and was there 200,000 years before they finally left Africa in several migration waves starting around 120- 60,000 years ago into much cooler areas that shows how adaptive they are.
Or shows where they thrived better.
You mean in the warmer condition in Africa.
Then they learnt they could make clothes to keep warm in cold climates.
Without clothing and shelter humans do very poorly in colder temperatures. Below about 17C and you won’t survive a week without shelter and clothing, you’ll end up with hypothermia, likely within the first day and perish.
The thermoneutral zone for humans is 20 degrees C (18 if you’re well padded) to 30 degrees C.
Above 30, we need to shed heat (mostly by sweating), and below 20 we need to increase our metabolic rate to generate more heat or insulate ourselves to reduce heat loss.
Yes, Nick humans thrived in hot countries. Well spotted
Your desperation is obvious because you overlook that H. Sapiens manage to live in HOT Africa for at least 100,000 years before they expanded into the north and east out of HOT Africa.
All Humans were trapped in Africa because of the desert conditions in northern Africa. Without access to water they were stuck. Warmer conditions allowed several migrations through corridors the Nile Valley and Sinai or what is now the Red Sea. There were several failed attempts at dispersal before humans made it past what is now the middle east permanently.
Most of the problems until this interglacial were down to Neanderthals being better able to cope with iceage conditions than modern humans whose predecessors tended to die out without leaving many traces as surviving in the cold dry conditions and competition was too much of a struggle.
Interesting. Of course, one should consider that the average annual temperature of the State of Maine is about 42F or about 10F below whatever that magic number of 51.8F is supposed to mean. Also, the average annual temperature of The State of Florida is about 72F, about 20 degrees higher. Yet the people of Maine and Florida both seem quite well fed, no?
Sometime in the 1960’s a physiologist studied basal metabolic rate shifts in Native Brits going to India and native Indians returning from England. She found that the Brits showed a greater decrease in BMR than the Indians on adapting to South India – have lost the reprint.
Much later there were some animal experiments that indicated cold exposure of infants improved adult adaption to heat. This reminded me of my mother telling of covering sleeping babies with newspaper in Belfast winter. I guess my brothers are very heat tolerant as a result.
Kind of a stupid statement, N.S., since humans came out of a hot Africa as Sunsettomy notes.
Still, WP is late on their inane reporting. I might suggest they change their motto to something like “Our Propaganda Enables Tyranny” or similar.
Modern humans didn’t flourish until the present interglacial warming around 10,000 years ago. They nearly died off before that, and actually did die off in the glacial areas.
What a queer protestation.
Nick wants to imply that he and his team are concerned about human flourishing, but we all know the truth that the climate nihilists are for anything and everything that leads to human misery, death, and lower population.
Gunna take an awful lot of misery to get down to Nick’s level !!
The real question would be, is it worth wrecking our entire civilization to stay 17 degrees below far warmer times in the past.
The GAT is a meaningless metric that cannot tell anything about climate.
Personally I would find 36C a bit warm. The majority of earths population who live within 10 degrees of the equator not so much.
But people from the cold north can adapt after a few years to living in most warm areas. Having spent 9 years in a warmer climate I’m still finding the East Midlands of England a bit on the cold side even after 3 years.
My wife and I lived in London for 20 years before moving to Wrexham in North Wales for work reasons. It took us many years to adapt to ‘the cold’.
And mammals have been around for at least 65 million years…
The headwaters for two important rivers are just miles apart along the border between the Dakotas and Minnesota – the Minnesota and Red rivers. The Red flows north into Hudson Bay, and the Minnesota flows south into the Gulf of Mexico. The Minnesota River Valley – the Valley of the Jolly Green Giant – is an important agricultural feedstock for the nation. If you were to drive along rural highways of the Minnesota River Valley today, it would seem like you were in a tunnel the corn stalks are so high. The Red River Valley isn’t so. – it’s too cold.
A few degrees warmer might make Canada a great agricultural producer, too, which would be just fine for human civilization and Canada, too.
Yes, the thing is that the productive agricultural areas would shift, not disappear.
Southern Texas may have to change basic crops better adapted to higher temperature. Other than that, not a lot of change. Especially if it is nighttime temps that get higher.
Canada is an excellent agricultural producer ($99.1B); one of the largest exporters in the world. Solely due to climate change… Most of Canada was under 2 miles of ice until 16,000 years ago.
More warming would extend our growing season and perhaps bring agriculture a little more north, but not much. The majority of what prevents more farms is the mountains and forests.
“But would it be good for human civilisation?”
Imagine the vast regions opened up to crop growth.
Regions now way too cold/frozen to grow anything.
Greenland (like in the time of the Vikings
Northern Russia where numerous skeletons of herd animals have been found.
Primates came into existence during the Eocene, and they and most mammals thrived during the warmth of the Eocene. Humans survive well in the tropics without the need for air conditioning, and little need for the warmth of fires. Many of the problems with heat in the mid-latitudes are the result of not adapting buildings to the heat, unlike in Spain.
“most mammals thrived during the warmth of the Eocene”
They thrived during the cooling of the Eocene.
But they can’t live in those cold regions any more, can they, dopey.
Planet is much cooler that when herds ranges the far NH tundras.
Not anymore they don’t in the furthest north regions apart from a few specialist species
They outcompeted cold blooded animals you mean?
When I fly back to Calgary from Europe, after passing over Greenland we enter North America and fly for hours over empty nothing.
imagine how much food you could up there if only it was a little warmer hey Nick?
it’s obvious to many that increasing temps are likely to continue to be positive
36 degrees C is very close to the body temperature of most endotherms. That tends to indicate it is an optimal temperature for the chemical reactions occurring.
Birds run a little warmer than mammals.
Corn production in the USA was over 30% of the world total. Average annual temp 12 C
Russia and Canada Total 4 % Average temperature about 0 C
Chuckle. Someone’s cheese has done slipped off its cracker.
Nick, if you believe that humans live better when it’s cold, then I don’t think we live on the same planet.
A study by astronomers showed that the optimum planetary temperature for life is five degrees C warmer than Earth.
The Little Ice Age was a very bad time for humanity. Storms were far worse. Human bones dating from the LIA were smaller compared to the MWP and today.
Why do you think that the first human civilisations arose after the Holocene warming, and not before?
Cold kills far, far more people than heat.
Over several years, whenever I came across a date for the extinction of a great civilisation, e.g. in a documentary, I would compare the date with the graph of an ice core. Without exception, every extinction date corresponded almost spookily with a significant cold period.
Over the last century, during the peak of global warming, the wellbeing of mankind (e.g. the OECD human wellbeing index) has dramatically increased.
Yes, there is a serious problem with global warming. There isn’t enough of it.
Chris
The large size of dinosaurs was in part due to extra CO2.
More CO2 equals bigger plants, equals bigger animals.
CO2 is good for the biosphere….
R
The large size of some dinosaurs was in part due to the more efficient breathing system (like birds today).
All is good, as long as the actual trend doesn’t continue.
Even if it could continue for a thousand years or so, we shouldn’t worry.
If everyone stops worrying then all politicians become unemployed.
We are in an ice age. Which, of course, doom porners will never mention.
Yep. And all this information has been on wikidpedia for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
A by the Left trusted media of information.
Well oil beef hooked.
Who knew?
far-left billionaires
Ha ha ha – people who made billions or inherited billions made using the free market system aka capitalism.
What’s left about that?
The far left are fascists just like the far right.
Not entirely true.
Fascists treat far left and far right ideologues as just useful idiots.
Fascists just want to commandeer or entice private production resources into government (i.e. Fascists) control, so they can be like the pigs in Animal Farm, and be “more equal than others”.
I think true within the spectrum of party politics. In my book far right lays beyond the collectivism of party politics so yet to be seen.
Left and right are just made-up categories. The true dichotomy is collectives versus free associations.
Collectives are all ideological and can take the form of socialism, fascism, or theism. No one is free to leave. Privileges accrue only with submission to the collective morality, Enemies are manufactured to curry loyalty and meaning. “Right” is one such manufactured enemy.
Free associations are necessarily made up of individuals. Rules of order are negotiated, All are free to leave. Individuals have autonomous rights. Individuals grant with the perceived benefits of association.
Collectives are intrinsically hostile to external entities (unbelievers). Free association societies are always initially welcoming (tit for tat).
So the current state of affair. Everything is Centrally controlled. Direct Taxation tells you it is like that. It gives those in power total control.
What you are saying certainly applies to Communists (in the short/medium term) but Fascists? Who controlled the factories in Mussolini’s Italy? As for Germany, the Krupps did very well out of German re-armament but any form of government control only occured during the war and that happened to a large extent in wartime Britain. Was Churchill a Fascist?
Just for the record, for Marxists, Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. During the Socialist stage the state owns the means of production. In the Communist era, the state disappears. In the countries run by Communist Parties, the Communist era, of course, never arrived.
Dude the current uniparty is fascism. The marriage of Govt and Corporations
How they made their money is one thing. How they use their money is quite another thing. And the people who inherited billions didn’t even make them.
Money is always an exchange for goods and services that everyone will accept. It used to also be a storehouse of wealth as well and was worth capturing as natural resources, gold, silver and jewels.
Nowadays its just a digital bit stored on some computer somewhere. It is backed by nuclear weapons. You will accept our currency or else. Therefore, All natural resources, gold, silver and jewels are negotiable.
For some, the more successful they are as capitalist the less they want capitalism, much like an elected leader who wants to abolish future elections to stay in power. They want no competition. They want power and control. Their thinking is along the lines of: I am mega-wealthy; clearly I’m a genius; I need to save the peons from themselves by telling them how they must live. To do that I must control prices and production.
I rarely agree with you but here I definitely do.
Whale, not well…
The high temperatures are way too high. See this excellent Javier Vinos post … https://x.com/JVinos_Climate/status/1837396243149906207
All their graph has shown is that “global average” is completely meaningless.
Where are the glacial/interglacial periods of the last 2 million years?? Guess they didn’t happen.
Yep. And yep.
“Where are the glacial/interglacial periods of the last 2 million years??”
It’s a different resolution. The reconstruction is covering 500 million years. The resolution is a few million years. Inter-glacial periods are just a few thousand years.
The graphs you posted further down show that the planet is colder than any time in the last 250 million years.
They also clearly show the planet is currently in a “coldhouse” climate state and that we need to get to a period somewhat warmer to push CO2 levels up to 800ppm…(transitional)
We can only hope.
—–
“Inter-glacial periods are just a few thousand years”.
Aren’t we so exceptionally LUCKY to be living in a brief inter-glacial at the moment…
… even though we are at the cold end of the Holocene inter-glacial, just above full ice age temperature levels.
LUCKY !? Canada would be so much nicer with a mile+ deep ice sheet on top of it like it would have been for most of the last 2 million years.
What does any of this rant have to do with the point I was making? Do you agree or disagree that that the graph is meaningless because it doesn’t show the inter-glacial periods?
It’s meaningless because it’s got one line purporting to show all of Earth’s “climate” for hundreds of millions of years. It’s not even wrong.,
So you don’t attach any meaning to the idea that it was warmer 50 million years ago than in the last million years?
The fact is that you are a mindless twerp who keeps putting its foot in its mouth. !
Don’t double down on your stupidity. !
And time acts like a low-pass filter, meaning that temperature peaks in the past are suppressed. The only fair way to judge the past is to use modern proxies similar to what was used to construct former temperatures. Even with that, modern temperatures are cooled because of the lapse rate. As mountain ranges are eroded away, any evidence of their former temperatures tend to be destroyed. Paleo-temperatures are biased to oceans and low-lying swampy areas. Comparing modern instrumental records to ancient proxies is the classic case of comparing apples to oranges.
“Comparing modern instrumental records to ancient proxies is the classic case of comparing apples to oranges.”
This isn’t doing that. This isn’t about what current temperatures are, it’s about changes over millions of years.
Which drives home the point that it’s completely meaningless and useless.
Why do so many here think that just because something doesn’t tell you everything, it must be meaningless?
The mainstream media has no credibility, academia has no credibility, NGOs have no credibility and government has no credibility. They all have a whale of a lot of work to do to gain our trust again. They are bad.
Trust? Are you confusing trust and obedience?
Good news, the IRS union endorses Harris.
No statement from tren de aragua.
The union must be expecting more work under Harris.
Why are government workers allowed to unionize?
Because vote changing politicians remove the law that had prevented much civil service mischief for most of the Republic’s lifetime.
They never used to be. Government employees were historically regarded as civil servants whose mere presence in the hallowed halls required an unbeholden position to any political group. Also, there were no trades working in government, and the idea of service unions wasn’t in existence yet.
Remember, unions were supposed to add value to manufactured items because of skill. There really is no such thing as a skilled maid, a skilled coffee pourer, a skilled dishwasher or other menial jobs that children can do.
I can never trust Government or NGO’s ever again.
Don’t forget lawyers. You wonder why so many are in politics.
The Andean-Saharan and Karoo ice ages are supposed to have been established as having occurred withing this period (Andean-Saharan:460 Ma to 420 Ma; Karoo: 360Ma tp 260 Ma).
Are we to believe those periods were far warmer than today?
“When the Washington Post set out to map 485 million years of global temperatures, they uncovered an inconvenient truth in the climate change story”
Why is this being attributed to the Washington Post? The research is by E.J. Judd et al.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
“they uncovered an inconvenient truth in the climate change story”
What’s inconvenient about it? It’s pretty much what other reconstructions over that time period show. It’s consistent with models. It has to be seeing as it’s based on climate models.
Whatever it’s based on, it’s a complete fantasy.
Bring on the ruler monkeys, must keep the rise alive.
So, it’s simultaneously “a complete fantasy”, and “an inconvenient truth”, and a “Shocking Truth”?
Idiot.
You need to be clearer with this level of analysis. It it me or this article which is idiotic?
You… always. No cure available.
And thanks for accidentally showing the planet is currently in a “coldhouse” state..
…. just like the climate realists have been saying.
IAWTP.
Different people can have different opinions.
I’m firmly convinced it’s meaningless.
It’s an inconvenient truth because it doesn’t convey the message which was intended.
I am sure the WaPo attributes the study. The most important part is that the WaPo published a story, which will be read by lots of liberals.
I wasn’t criticizing the Washington Post Article. I’ve not read it. I’m just questioning why so many posts here only refer to newspaper articles, and imply it’s the newspapers that produced the science, rather than just reported it.
Yep, it shows that the world is actually in a very cold period.. Only just above that of major Ice Ages.
Warming would be absolutely beneficial, even if it was caused by CO2.. which it isn’t.
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with this reconstruction? So far the comments from “skeptics” seem to be split between those claiming this is an accurate “true” reconstruction, and those calling it junk.
Either way, the fact that it seems to be a shock to you that we are currently in a cold period on a geological time frame, suggests you are are not the expert on climate you claim to be.
YAWN. !!
It doesn’t shock me.. I have known all along that the current climate is very much at the COLD end of an interglacial.
Sorry if you were UNAWARE of that fact, because of your innate ignorance.
“It has to be seeing as it’s based on climate models.”
Since “climate models” are junk science, is that your point that those reconstructions are junk science ?
And all this information has been on wikidpedia for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
This new WaPo article is evidently a result of the recent editorial and staff cutbacks due to losses even Bezos cannot afford. So, they post fact rather than alarmist opinion. Not enough upper layers to modify anymore.
Because, in July 2023, “Massive floods. Record heat. Extreme ocean temps. Forest fires out of control…Climate alarm bells ringing.”
Because, in June 2024, “The climate disaster is already here.”
For all of my years in Colorado, I would rate 2024’s weather as perhaps the most mild, even if I have had to wear slippers and use an electric blanket.
It has been pretty mild in Kansas. A really nice summer, in fact.
Interesting. The PETM was an 8-12 C rise in the [Judd et al. 2024] study. And that was with the Earth already 10 C higher than it is today. Judd et al. do not mince words in their conclusions.
“There is a strong relationship between PhanDA GMST and CO2, indicating that CO2 is the dominant control on Phanerozoic climate.”
“The GMST-CO2 relationship indicates a notably constant “apparent” Earth system sensitivity (i.e., the temperature response to a doubling of CO2, including fast and slow feedbacks) of ∼8°C, with no detectable dependence on whether the climate is warm or cold.”
“CO2 is the dominant driver of Phanerozoic climate, emphasizing the importance of this greenhouse gas in shaping Earth history.”
“Atmospheric CO2 exerts a dominant control on GMST, both today and in the geologic past.”
I always advocate for a measured and pragmatic approach when examining the body of evidence. Being an outlier in terms of CO2’s warming potential I think it is prudent to consider this study with a skeptical lens.
BTW…I was surprised when I saw this article appear on WUWT; nevermind doing so with at least an implicit showing of support to the underlying study. I wonder if the WUWT reviewers fully understood what they were approving?
Raising awareness does not an endorsement make.
He is bravely resisting the “contrarian posse”.
They called it a “shocking truth”! Sounds like an endorsement.
Seems to be a total shock to you, Nick.
But then, facts and truth are always going to be.
Richard Eldred calls it an “inconvenient truth”.
Troll response.
Conclusions (opinions) are like rectums. (Recta?)
Everybody has one.
He blindly believes anything that is published in the climate crazy journals.
“There is a strong relationship between PhanDA GMST and CO2, indicating that CO2 is the dominant control on Phanerozoic climate.” Of course the ice core records going back about 800,000 years show quite uniformly that CO2 change always lags temperature change. Where is the evidence that this pattern did not hold during earlier times?
Judd perhaps should take a remedial class on cause and effect.
They conclude that CO2 drives temperature based on a ‘close relationship’ between the two. However, it’s more likely that temperature is the driving force, not CO2.
It is instructive to consider the topography and chemical weathering occurring during the Eocene. Nobody talks about what the relief was like during these ‘hot house’ events.
It is indeed inconvenient to the AGW shills, to find out that our carbon based planet is far colder now than it has been for most of the last many millions of years.
“Correlation does not establish causation.”
Across the Cenozoic at least, the partial pressure of atmospheric CO₂ is consistent with SST as the primary driver.
I guess we can throw out those out-of-control positive feedback’s that were going to send our planet into a living inferno.
That may be true, but Richard Eldred and Zerohedge are describing the findings of the study which state that those feedbacks will result in 8 C of warming from 2xCO2 as an “inconvenient truth” and “shocking truth”.
Eight degrees total warming from 1.5 degrees of CO2 warming? Why didn’t the medieval period hit 8 degrees of warming? Warmer during the Roman and Minoan periods, but without 8 degrees of positive feedback. Makes no sense.
They are obviously VERY STUPID people, would accidentally showed that plant has been far warmer than now for most of the last many millions of years.
I’d like to see corresponding CO2 levels overlap on that chart… if that is possible.
From the paper:
WOW.. look how COLD it is now compared to the last 250 million years.
Even if CO2 did cause warming (and not the other way round…)
.. we obviously need to get the level up to 600 to be anything but a “coldhouse”
and up to 800ppm to be “tepid”.
You have just destroyed the whole anti-CO2 scam in one graph..
Well done, idiot !! . !!
Yes it’s cold now. That’s what has always been known, that’s what this reconstruction suggests. Is this news to you?
“Even if CO2 did cause warming (and not the other way round…)”
It does but it’s not an “either/or”.
“.. we obviously need to get the level up to 600 to be anything but a “coldhouse”“
You you’ve lost the argument when you resort to bold type. Just because something is “obvious” to you doesn’t means it’s correct. It might well be obvious to you that the world is flat, and the center of the universe. But on past form I wouldn’t want to take your word for it.
Why do you think it’s imperative that we increase CO2 to levels not seen in the past 10 million years? Given that all of human evolution and civilization has happened under these colder temperatures, it’s not clear how these cold conditions were holding us back.
“You have just destroyed the whole anti-CO2 scam in one graph..“
Oh, isn’t he bold.
Seriously, crediting me with that graph is nonsense. I merely copied it from the Science article, something you could have done yourself if you were capable of following links. As to why you think a single graph destroys the idea we should cut back on CO2 emissions, then you just haven’t been paying attention.
“Well done, idiot !! . !!”
You have to admire the lengths bnice will go to, to demonstrate he’s a troll. If it is his intention to send up the true WUWT supporters, I can’t think of a better way then ending every comment with personal abuse followed by four exclamation marks.
Poor little petal.
You stuffed up, and now you are trying to cover up.
It is hilarious to watch.
“Yes it’s cold now.”
WOW… Finally you got there…
So can we stop all the mindless carry-on and all the anti-CO2 crap and get back to sensible reliable energy supply system.
Can you stop all your mindless yelping and whimpering as soon as we get a tiny amount of natural warming.
And no, there is no evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
You really are an absolutely moronic AGW apostle, aren’t you.
“lost the argument”
Poor monkey.
You lost the argument when you first commented. !
—-
“crediting me with that graph is nonsense”
You posted it !!
—
Most of human development happened during the Holocene Optimum and the warmer spikes of the RWP and MWP.. The cold period were difficult for humans
Fortunately, up until this moronic anti-CO2 scam, humans found that they could have RELIABLE energy supplies from fossil fuels so the current “slightly tepid” period is much easier to cope with.
Hint…. You need to add more whine to your whinge to make your meaningless points better.. (in your own mind, anyway)
Have extracted the relevant graph and added line of current CO2 level
Poor widdle bellboy has just shown that the planet is in a “Coldhouse” climate state. 🙂
A great graph for future use. Thanks little child. !! 🙂
“Poor widdle bellboy has just shown that the planet is in a “Coldhouse” climate state.”
I can’t claim credit for it. It’s been known for more than a century, and that graph is not my work.
So all your manic yelping and panic when we get a tiny surge of warming can stop
All your support for the AGW scam can stop.
Great to have you on the REALIST side, even if you are only only one step shy of a child monkey.
Has it occurred to you that this correlation could simply be due to Henry’s Law?
Check it out, Graeme: Cenozoic Carbon Dioxide: The 66 Ma Solution
Lots of Henry’s Law.
Yep, the simplest, most parsimonious hypothesis which explains all the observations.
Alarmists have causation backwards.
It doesn’t explain everything. All it’s saying is you can explain the reduction in CO2 entirely by the reduction in temperature. (Except it doesn’t even say that, but allows that there was a lot of additional perturbations in CO2 levels). But that doesn’t result in the conclusion that therefore you do not need CO2 to affect temperature.
Your and Frank’s “causation backwards” argument is just a false dichotomy. You are claiming that either temperatures cause CO2 levels or CO2 levels cause temperature – but it can’t be both.
As to this being a parsimonious hypothesis, I’d disagree. In order for it to work you have to explain the large drop in temperatures over the last 60 million years, and if you exclude CO2 as a reason, you have to introduce another assumption – hence it’s not parsimonious.
In this case he hypothesizes magmatism might have been a cause. But his own arguments don’t add up. His calculations, based on some dubious assumptions, result in at most about 5K of warming, but the fall in temperatures over the last 60 million years has been around 20K.
I doubt there’s anything simple about the correlation. It’s a mass of feed backs and vicious cycles.
I doubt you have even the vaguest clue what you are talking about.
See Pat Frank’s post above on the correlation between SST and CO2.
Hmmm, you can claim a straight line curve fit through the blue Cenozoic dots, but the Mesozoic and Paleozoic are too scattered to say there exists a fit….and 1 out of 3 isn’t a winner…
And with all that extra CO2 we never saw one tipping point.
You do realise that both the temperature and the CO2 are not measurements but are calculated from proxies and are based on a whole set of assumptions, mostly unverifiable?
we have had a whole generation of stupid science in which every climate event was attributed to SUV CO2 emissions
The major events are probably linked to continental positions and their impact of ocean currents. Milankovitch cycles modulate the prevalent situation
It had to be farting dinosaurs. There were no SUV’s.
Feels like after about 30 years, the paradigm is shifting. The guys who started it must be retiring.
The Carboniferous age also had ice ages.
While one might concur with the general findings and it may reinforce the dominant viewpoint on this site, one needs to take this paper with a grain (or even a large bag) of salt.
This temperature chart is not based on empirical data but rather on calculated figures based on proxies, and those calculations are based on a whole set of assumptions and theories, most of which cannot be independently validated. Instead, they are “validated” by comparing them with other such calculations. This is in fact not validation but confirmation bias.
They say in their paper “...we present PhanDA, a state-of-the-art reconstruction of GMST spanning the last 485 million years of Earth history. PhanDA is based on paleoclimate data assimilation (DA), which statistically combines proxy data with ESM simulations…” and “We reconstruct Phanerozoic GMST using an offline ensemble Kalman filter method to assimilate proxy and model information.” How is this different from the various absurd GCM’s using other models’ projections as data and copying each other’s modelling assumptions with the end result being they are all in lock-step to the same erroneous conclusion.
What is also telling is the error band. It is so narrow as to be laughable and should have been a klaxon warning to anybody reading this paper. The further back in time you go, the wider and wider this error band should be.