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

[Admin]

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

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

 

[ChumpChange]

First, global warming is what happens between ice ages. This is a fact, whether humans are on the planet or not. The data on the graph is exaggerated by 4,900%, which I'll get to at the end. Second, historic atmospheric CO2 level increases have very often not correlated with increases in atmospheric temperatures. Assuming a linear increase in atmospheric CO2 levels it looks like we might be close to reaching where C02 was 30 or 40 million years ago in the next one or two centuries, but associating that with a "hothouse" is a specious argument. Please also note that current CO2 levels are near planetary minimums over the last 500 million years. Third, we know that Antarctica has been ice-free over 60 times, the last big melt being just over one million years ago. Between glaciation cycles, which do not always occur with ice ages, sea levels rise and fall up to 200 meters (600 feet), and this is consistent with what we are seeing now, which is a 300 foot rise in sea levels since the end of the last ice age approximately 12,000 years ago. It is entirely possible and consistent with geological history that Manhattan and Florida will be under several hundred feet of sea water again, as they have been many times in the past before humans walked the earth. On this point, lots is being made about the Antarctic ice sheet breaking off and raising ocean levels. Let's be clear, the ice sheet is already floating on the ocean, so its melting isn't going to raise ocean levels one inch. Ignoring the facts for the hype is journalistic and scientific malfeasance. When Greenland and the Antarctic land mass are ice-free, that will raise ocean levels as it has many times in Earth's geologic history. Fourth, long before humans arrived on the scene CO2 levels were much higher, and current land temperatures and deep ocean temperatures are the coldest they've been in 500,000 years and 65 million years, respectively. Finally, and most damning for the "hothouse" graph is that they commit scale exaggeration of 4,900% to scare the math illiterate. To be clear, the graph changes scale from tens of thousands of years to hundreds of years at the far right of the X-axis. Specifically, it changes from 15,000 years to 300 years to falsely magnify short-term trends in atmospheric temperature, which are largely driven by La-Nina and El-Nino driving short-term ocean temperature changes. This is journalistic and scientific game playing to push a pre-determined conclusion.

 

[Megavolt]

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide

Guest post by David Archibald The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C…

wattsupwiththat.com

The effect of co2 is exaggerated by the scientifically illiterate.

 

[Erny_Module]

First, global warming is what happens between ice ages. This is a fact, .... edited for brevity.

Quite so. Atmospheric CO2 levels do not predict or drive global temperatures over geological timespans, in fact, there seems to be little, if any, correlation. The sensitivity to CO2, or 'Forcing', in all the models is way, way too high, and so they generate runaway temperatures. Compare temperatures predicted by the models with observations, and you'll see they all run too hot - much hotter than what is observed. This may be by accident or design, but the models are not, and cannot be accurate - especially when trying to forecast temperatures out to 300 years in the future! They are still unable to handle clouds properly! The models are basically trying to forecast the future state of two interacting turbulent fluids - the atmosphere and the oceans. Good luck with that. Go talk to an aerodynamicist and ask them what they like about turbulence.
The Earth is warming, gradually, as expected - there's no debate about that. The debate is as to what effect, if any, man-made CO2 is having, and that, despite what anyone might say, is by no means settled.
I would like to see that graph properly plotted - I suspect you'd need a very large magnifying glass to see that last part that they're getting all worked up about.

 

[Andrew LB]

The big problem with climate models is that ironically they do not account for the atmosphere being spherical.

I'm not joking here, this is indeed the case. The implications of this are profound. I would recommend giving this paper a read.

A round Earth for climate models

View ORCID ProfileMichael J. Prather and View ORCID ProfileJuno C. Hsu

Significance
Early climate and weather models, constrained by computing resources, made numerical approximations on modeling the real world. One process, the radiative transfer of sunlight through the atmosphere, has always been a costly component. As computational ability expanded, these models added resolution, processes, and numerical methods to reduce errors and become the Earth system models that we use today. While many of the original approximations have since been improved, one—that the Earth’s surface and atmosphere are locally flat—remains in current models. Correcting from flat to spherical atmospheres leads to regionally differential solar heating at rates comparable to the climate forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosols. In addition, spherical atmospheres change how we evaluate the aerosol direct radiative forcing.
Abstract
Sunlight drives the Earth’s weather, climate, chemistry, and biosphere. Recent efforts to improve solar heating codes in climate models focused on more accurate treatment of the absorption spectrum or fractional clouds. A mostly forgotten assumption in climate models is that of a flat Earth atmosphere. Spherical atmospheres intercept 2.5 W⋅m−2 more sunlight and heat the climate by an additional 1.5 W⋅m−2 globally. Such a systematic shift, being comparable to the radiative forcing change from preindustrial to present, is likely to produce a discernible climate shift that would alter a model’s skill in simulating current climate. Regional heating errors, particularly at high latitudes, are several times larger. Unlike flat atmospheres, constituents in a spherical atmosphere, such as clouds and aerosols, alter the total amount of energy received by the Earth. To calculate the net cooling of aerosols in a spherical framework, one must count the increases in both incident and reflected sunlight, thus reducing the aerosol effect by 10 to 14% relative to using just the increase in reflected. Simple fixes to the current flat Earth climate models can correct much of this oversight, although some inconsistencies will remain.

A round Earth for climate models

Early climate and weather models, constrained by computing resources, made numerical approximations on modeling the real world. One process, the radiative transfer of sunlight through the atmosphere, has always been a costly component. As computational ability expanded, these models added...

www.pnas.org

For the past decade i watched arrogant people in academia and pompus keyboard commandos attack anyone who would dare question the climate change orthodoxy, typically calling them anti-science or my favorite, Flat-Earthers. The irony is so thick it would make a pr0n star blush.

(account is new because i can't access my old one for some reason)

 

[Jan Steinman]

Nothing like having "climate" in the title to make the KochBots bring in the naysayers.

You might disagree with long-term predictions, but it's hard to disregard recent climactic events, like exceptional storms, hundred-year floods every five years or so, and the widespread incineration of forests.

Among having done many other things (including a STEM career) I am now an organic farmer. Our growing season has increased year over year for a decade. Our pear trees are blooming three weeks earlier, on average, than they did 13 years ago.

But the naysayers will explain that away somehow.