Study: Earth's roughly warmest in about 100,000 years

September 26, 2016 by Seth Borenstein
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

A new study paints a picture of an Earth that is warmer than it has been in about 120,000 years, and is locked into eventually hitting its hottest mark in more than 2 million years.

As part of her doctoral dissertation at Stanford University, Carolyn Snyder , now a climate policy official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, created a continuous 2 million year temperature record, much longer than a previous 22,000 year record. Snyder's temperature reconstruction, published Monday in the journal Nature , doesn't estimate temperature for a single year, but averages 5,000-year time periods going back a couple million years.

Snyder based her reconstruction on 61 different sea surface temperature proxies from across the globe, such as ratios between magnesium and calcium, species makeup and acidity. But the further the study goes back in time, especially after half a million years, the fewer of those proxies are available, making the estimates less certain, she said.

These are rough estimates with large margins of errors, she said. But she also found that the temperature changes correlated well to carbon dioxide levels.

Temperatures averaged out over the most recent 5,000 years—which includes the last 125 years or so of industrial emissions of heat-trapping gases—are generally warmer than they have been since about 120,000 years ago or so, Snyder found. And two interglacial time periods, the one 120,000 years ago and another just about 2 million years ago, were the warmest Snyder tracked. They were about 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius) warmer than the current 5,000-year average.

With the link to carbon dioxide levels and taking into account other factors and past trends, Snyder calculated how much warming can be expected in the future.

Snyder said if climate factors are the same as in the past—and that's a big if—Earth is already committed to another 7 degrees or so (about 4 degrees Celsius) of warming over the next few thousand years.

"This is based on what happened in the past," Snyder said. "In the past it wasn't humans messing with the atmosphere."

Scientists give various reasons for past changes in carbon dioxide and heat levels, including regular slight shifts in Earth's orbital tilt.

Four outside scientists praised the study's tracking of past temperatures, with caveats about how less certain it is as it gets deeper in the past. Jeremy Shakun of Boston College said "Snyder's work is a great contribution and future work should build on it."

But many of the same scientists said Snyder's estimate of future warming seems too high. Shakun called it unrealistic and not matching historical time periods of similar carbon dioxide levels.

A fifth scientist, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, called the study provocative and interesting but said he remains skeptical until more research confirms it. He found the future temperature calculations "so much higher than prevailing estimates that one has to consider it somewhat of an outlier."

Explore further: Late Cretaceous Period was likely ice-free

More information: Carolyn W. Snyder. Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nature19798

Related Stories

Late Cretaceous Period was likely ice-free

September 24, 2013

For years, scientists have thought that a continental ice sheet formed during the Late Cretaceous Period more than 90 million years ago when the climate was much warmer than it is today. Now, a University of Missouri researcher ...

Hot tropical oceans during Pliocene greenhouse warming

June 29, 2014

The impact of the greenhouse gas CO2 on the Earth's temperature is well established by climate models and temperature records over the past 100 years, as well as coupled records of carbon dioxide concentration and temperature ...

Recommended for you

'Warm' ice in world's highest glacier

November 21, 2018

Ice temperatures inside the world's highest glacier on the slopes of Mount Everest are warmer than expected and especially vulnerable to future climate change, warn glaciologists.

55 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RichManJoe
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2016
Kiss our collective arses goodbye. Thank you, big oil.
TrollBane
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
@R.M.J. Big oil, yes, but save some sarcastic thanks for religions that encourage overpopulation, bad agricultural practices, mass consumerism and those that promote it, and an assortment of others that don't care unless it impacts them directly right now.
24volts
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2016
Why does everyone blame big oil? They are not the ones that are burning it, consumers are.

As far as religions go there you can blame Catholics and Islam. They are the only two I know of that encourage procreation without common sense.

I don't know of any that promote bad agricultural practices or mass consumerism so why don't you tell us which ones those are?
leetennant
4 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2016
These are rough estimates with large margins of errors, she said


Which puts this more in the 'oh that's interesting' category more than the revolutionary category. But I often find these experimental methodologies often feed into more robust estimates later on. So this is probably good preliminary work.

But she also found that the temperature changes correlated well to carbon dioxide levels.


This is where it gets interesting. We know that studying the cycle of increased GHG = increased temps = increased GHG provides insight into what we can expect if we keep pumping GHG into the system. This further re-enforces that cycle and provides another line of evidence that increasing GHG leads to predictable temperature increases across the system.

Even if, as Mann says
he found the future temperature calculations "so much higher than prevailing estimates that one has to consider it somewhat of an outlier."
aksdad
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2016
If even Michael Mann is skeptical, you might as well chuck this one.

Temperature proxies are not temperature measurements. They are attempts to infer past temperatures from tree ring widths, wood density in tree rings, ratios of different elements found in sediment, ice core samples, coral, fossils, etc. They can be influenced by many factors besides temperature. Their accuracy at measuring temperature alone, uninfluenced by other factors, is questionable especially in older samples. They can, however, show trends over long time scales; like global cycles of glaciation and warming over 100,000 year periods. See this example of several different proxies used to estimate global temperatures over the last 12,000 years:

https://upload.wi...ions.png

Their measurements differ and fluctuate drastically, but most of them roughly show a similar 10,000-year trend.
aksdad
2 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2016
leetennant, if GHG = increased temps = increased GHG, why hasn't the earth become Venus long ago?

Over millions of years there have been several previous cycles of both higher and lower levels of both GHG and temperature. Either there are damping mechanisms that moderate the effect you suggest that haven't been accounted for yet, or the relationship isn't as straightforward as you indicate.

Venus has an atmosphere that is 96% CO₂ compared to Earth's paltry 0.04%. CO₂ is the dominant greenhouse gas blamed for recent warming by alarmists, like James Hansen, formerly of NASA, who postulates that the runaway feedback you suggest could turn our atmosphere into one like Venus. However, even the IPCC thinks that's crazy talk, stating:

a "runaway greenhouse effect"--analogous to Venus--appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities.

See: http://www.ipcc.c...inf3.pdf
leetennant
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2016

Venus has an atmosphere that is 96% CO₂ compared to Earth's paltry 0.04%.


I think you just answered your own question. The question is, if we keep going could we cause a positive feedback so stark it could cause the kind of runaway greenhouse effect that you see in Venus? I personally don't think so. But we wouldn't need that stark an increase to create conditions that aren't viable for humans. Only a temperature increase of between 4 and 7 degrees is sufficient. We're on track for 7.
rrrander
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 27, 2016
There is no value to cold weather. Each year, cold kills hundreds of thousands of people, animals. Warm weather doesn't come close to doing that. Year-round growing seasons in the north will be needed to counter privation brought on by rampant population growth in the 3rd world.
tblakely1357
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2016
Doom, doom, doom. Just a variation of the crazy religious guy on the street ranting how the end is nigh. Today is just pays a lot better.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2016
Jesus you people are silly. So if it's the indeed the hottest it's been in 100,000 years (based on proxies with admittedly large margins of error) where is the feared apocalypse?
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2016
There is no value to cold weather. Each year, cold kills hundreds of thousands of people, animals. Warm weather doesn't come close to doing that.
@rrranderTROLL
uhmmm.... you can't read, can you?
or did your google break?
http://www.cdc.go...29a2.htm

https://www.epa.g...d-deaths

https://www3.epa....2014.pdf

maybe you should read this: http://www.livesc...ths.html
optical
Sep 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ultron
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2016
In other words, 120 000 years and 2 million years ago it was warmer than today. And 52 millions years ago when it was significantly warmer than today the fauna and flora on Earth flourished. There were huge rainforests in Arctic and in Antarctic:
http://www.zmesci...-321432/
http://www.cbsnew...ropical/

All this happened without any influence of humans and life on Earth not only survived this extremely warm period, but it flourished. The real threat to life is Ice age, not global warming.
optical
Sep 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
"roughly"
Let me translate that for you Chicken Little retards. That's AGW Cult for "LIE". But hey, you hungry Chicken Littles must be fed.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2016
Earth's roughly warmest in about 100,000 years

Just as one would expect being the Earth is nearing a peak in interglaciation period.
guptm
1.4 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Students publish hot topics to graduate. Professors support them to run their shops. They use science as tool to do all the business.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
All established science is concocted from graduate theses.
guptm
2.5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
All established science was done outside school, and were not graduate theses. Einstein and Newton's work were not graduate theses. Faraday, Maxwell, Darwin, Gauss, Huygens, Bohr, Euler, Galileo, Kepler... All their work was not graduate theses!
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2016
All established science was done outside school, and were not graduate theses. Einstein and Newton's work were not graduate theses. Faraday, Maxwell, Darwin, Gauss, Huygens, Bohr, Euler, Galileo, Kepler... All their work was not graduate theses!


Yes, I KNOW.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
"As far as religions go there you can blame Catholics and Islam. They are the only two I know of that encourage procreation without common sense.

I don't know of any that promote bad agricultural practices or mass consumerism so why don't you tell us which ones those are?"

Well, I would, if I had ever said religions had anything to do with bad agricultural practices or mass consumerism. Commas are separators in sentences, after all. But what would I know about that with my lowly degree in English Lit?

In list form for the

1. Religions that encourage excessive procreation
2. Bad agricultural practices
3. Mass consumerism.

Yes, there are cults and branches of Christianity that pander to money: https://en.wikipe...theology
xstos
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2016
Why does everybody focus on the absolute temperatures in the historical record. It is the acceleration we should be worried about. We have a global warming exponential spike happening that looks something akin to the federal reserve's funny money balance sheet. Let's see how many species survive the massive ramp because we choose not to stop burning and trashing every ecosystem on earth. Billions of clueless monkeys playing chicken with their planet because who cares.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2016
Why does everybody focus on the absolute temperatures in the historical record.


Oh, exactly. I don't know how many times we've typed *pace and rate of change* on this forum. Over and over and over again. and still some blockhead goes "Temperatures were higher 2 million years ago" like that is relevant to anything.
dustywells
1 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2016
Why does everybody focus on the absolute temperatures in the historical record.


Oh, exactly. I don't know how many times we've typed *pace and rate of change* on this forum. Over and over and over again. and still some blockhead goes "Temperatures were higher 2 million years ago" like that is relevant to anything.
Show some initiative and think, leetennant. If you and the alarmist cabal keep attacking and driving away every "blockhead" and "denier" that dares to express any thought that in your world seems to threaten your dogma, you must expect new, uninitiated "blockheads" to replace them. How will you score any conversions if you constantly kill off every opportunity to educate? If you have any convincing arguments why don't you use those to answer the questions instead of attacking all the "blockheads?"
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2016
If you and the alarmist cabal keep attacking and driving away every "blockhead" and "denier" that dares to express any thought that in your world seems to threaten your dogma, you must expect new, uninitiated "blockheads" to replace them
@dustybrainedTROLL
1- leetennant's not an alarmist either (see reply here; http://phys.org/n...ern.html )

2- there is a huge difference between logical skepticism and denier rhetoric sans evidence or even the rhetoric directly refuted by the evidence
that means, by definition, the denier cult is arguing from a position of "faith" (meaning belief without evidence) as well as argument from ignorance and conspiracist ideation - need i link that study (again) on conspiracist ideation showing their typical rejection of science?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2016
@dusty cont'd
How will you score any conversions if you constantly kill off every opportunity to educate?
education means evidence, or providing something to learn that is considered factual (unless you're teaching philosophy or religion) https://en.wikipe...ducation

... so how, exactly, are you educating anyone?

the only "education" that you've actually managed to provide is how not to argue science

.

tell you what, provide some actual, reputable scientific evidence that is equivalent to the studies i've presented refuting climate change and the potential threat it has and then we can discuss the *science* ....

then we can discuss what is legit and what is not legit
and not all the other crap

deal?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2016
"the only "education" that you've actually managed to provide is how not to argue science"
-------------------------------

What have you proven about yourself? Why are you hiding?

Stop accusing and abusing others like a sniper too scared to show himself.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2016
I have to take back that last comment and apologize to everybody here for it.

Continuing an argument is not in the interest of this forum. Mea culpa.

george kamburoff
dustywells
2 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2016
tell you what, provide some actual, reputable scientific evidence that is equivalent to the studies i've presented refuting climate change and the potential threat it has and then we can discuss the *science*

deal?
OK! Let's take them one at a time and don't try to duck out by changing the subject. How about the alarmist cabal linchpin that CO2 is causing climate change when all throughout the ice core analyses indications are that temperature increases lead CO2 increases. In the last three hundred years your own records show a warming trend that began well before CO2 began to rise significantly.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2016
How about the alarmist cabal linchpin
@dusty
sigh
1- i'm not an alarmist, nor am i part of a cabal

2- until you link studies/references, there isn't a real reason to continue

3- we're talking amplification of warming by CO2 (see links below)

4- rate of change - you forgot about rate, jumped straight to YAAFM

arguing science is about arguing from facts... you know, that stuff found in validated studies?
which was the point of my post above: it's why i said
provide some actual, reputable scientific evidence that is equivalent to the studies i've presented refuting climate change and the potential threat
so what i want is specifics!

if you want to talk about CO2, first read up on the subject
http://cdiac.ornl..._tem.htm

http://cdiac.ornl...tok.html

http://science.sc...cb8e3d36

then we can talk
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2016
@Dusty cont'd
OK! Let's take them one at a time and don't try to duck out by changing the subject.
i am more than willing to discuss the science, but if you want to talk about the subject, you must first learn about it

skip the rhetoric

give me evidence and state a clear, concise argument

give evidence

we can talk, but first you must read the links above
and i will even skip the additional label to your moniker - unless you skip back into past trends

more to the point: remember this link
http://www.auburn...ion.html

it's important
dustywells
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2016
Stumpy, I asked a simple question and it took you two posts not to answer. If you want to educate "blockheads" like me you will have to answer in your own words not send us to echo-blogs and websites that take days to weeks of study.

So, tell me if you can why CO2 is causing climate change when all throughout the ice core analyses indications are that temperature increases lead CO2 increases. In the last three hundred years your own records show a warming trend that began well before CO2 began to rise significantly.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2016
If you want to educate "blockheads" like me you will have to answer in your own words not send us to echo-blogs and websites that take days to weeks of study
@dusty
1- you have a propensity for ignoring facts for your belief, therefore i use factual validated information to prove a point

2- there is no reason to paraphrase the science ... especially climate science, which has taken to posting open studies and information for folk like you
(you simply want to catch someone in a misinterpretation, so i use SOURCE material to alleviate the problems with paraphrasing)

3- only you would say that validated facts are "echo-blogs"

note, those were studies, not blogs

the first two were the ice cores you want to talk about, the latter is a very specific validated study about the relationship of CO2 and WV in the atmosphere and how it works, warms, etc

there. i paraphrased it for you. kept it simple, too

there are none so blind as those who don't want to see
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2016
@dustybrainTROLL cont'd
tell me if you can why CO2 is causing climate change
it has a known validated affect of warming as a GHG and it also affects WV in a vicious cycle - http://science.sc...cb8e3d36

more to the point, that isn't just conjecture: see Solomon et al same year as above

also note
The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise
@SS

that isn't just claims, but facts i can back up with evidence

what do you have that refutes that?
more to the point, what *evidence* do you have that shows that CO2 is not a GHG or doesn't affect WV and warming

mind you, i want evidence, not your claims

i don't care what you believe
only what you can prove
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2016
@Dusty last
I asked a simple question and it took you two posts not to answer
no, you didn't ask a simple question

more to the point, there is an answer in the posts, as well as evidence

the problem isn't that i didn't answer in my own words, but that you want me to interpret things for you

how, exactly, does that teach you how to research or learn anything about science?
how does that teach you how to validate a claim?
how does that provide evidence of anything at all?

that is important in scientific discourse - not *that* you believe something, but that you can prove it

one reason science far outstrips religion is that you can verify the answers for yourself... or even test it and validate it using the same method the scientists use

it doesn't require adherence to the law of authority
only that the evidence proves the conjecture without bias, in a repeatable way that isn't subjective to interpretation
dustywells
3 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2016
OK, here is a quote from the link you provided.

"According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations."

Sorry, the echo-blogs reference was meant to be pre-emptive and was based on discussions in other threads.

Still working on the sciencemag link.
dustywells
2 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2016
the problem isn't that i didn't answer in my own words, but that you want me to interpret things for you
...
how does that provide evidence of anything at all?
It would show that you understand the subject. It would show that you are not simply throwing links in order that you may overwhelm ignorant "blockheads." Nothing wrong with providing the links to substantiate your statements though.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2016
the echo-blogs reference was meant to be pre-emptive and was based on discussions in other threads
@Dusty
stick to this discussion
According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature
i didn't say CO2 was the cause of historical warming
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
-SS

also note, historical warming doesn't mean current rate of change warming
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2016
@dusty cont'd
It would show that you understand the subject
not necesarrily
being able to point you at the correct studies and show you the answers definitely does demonstrate understanding though... it proves that i understand enough to point you at specific validated answers, too
It would show that you are not simply throwing links
you mean Gish-Gallop like zeph, hannes/reeve and others?

i understand that
Like i said, i also understand enough about the topic to point you at specific studies to show you specific answers

also note: i am not a climate scientists
i do, however, know how to research and one of the most important criteria is source material

i don't accept just any evidence, only that which can be validated
that is why i usually don't use blogs or other references unless i've checked the references and studies they use as evidence

that is important

just like checking facts and insuring you're not being conned by someone
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2016
caveat and clarification
i didn't say CO2 was the cause of historical warming
i meant to say the following:

I didnt say that CO2 was the initial cause of historical warming

.

that should be clear by the posted quote underneath my statement, but i figured i should be clear and concise for communication's sake
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2016
I have to take back that last comment and apologize to everybody here for it.

Continuing an argument is not in the interest of this forum. Mea culpa.

george kamburoff
"Cleckley's seminal hypothesis concerning the psychopath is that he suffers from a very real mental illness indeed: a profound and incurable affective deficit. If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest kind."

"And even when they are exposed, they can carry on as if nothing has happened, often making their accusers the targets of accusations of being victimized by THEM."

-George you will never EVER be left alone to do what you do. People here will continue to dog you and expose you because we all know what you are and what you are capable of.
Mea culpa
While youre at it, why dont you Mea culpa your lies about being an engineer, your store-bought MS, your mil awards, your PV and EV, your education and experience, etc ect etc.

-?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2016
Continuing an argument is not in the interest of this forum. Mea culpa.

george kamburoff
"A woman with a staggering record of fraud, deceit, lies, and broken promises concluded a letter to the parole board with, "I've let a lot of people down… One is only as good as her reputation and name. My word is as good as gold.""

-One of the interests of this forum is for the community to identify those who habitually abuse it and warn others of their presence.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2016
There is no value to cold weather. Each year, cold kills hundreds of thousands of people, animals. Warm weather doesn't come close to doing that. Year-round growing seasons in the north will be needed to counter privation brought on by rampant population growth in the 3rd world.

If I look up Dumb Phark in a dictionary I'm going to find a picture of rrander......
Bongstar420
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2016
Horreeeeyyyy! There is hope yet.

Lets get this interglacial at least as warm as the last ones and lets keep it that way for more than a 1,000 years.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2016
i don't accept just any evidence, only that which can be validated
that is why i usually don't use blogs or other references unless i've checked the references and studies they use as evidence

that is important

just like checking facts and insuring you're not being conned by someone
I realize that current information is often difficult to obtain, thus I accepted your link to the sciencemag article even though it is six years old and somewhat out of date.

In that light I have difficulty understanding the apparent contradiction in this statement, "water vapor provides the strongest climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the cause (forcing) of global climate change." Can you point me to a more recent study that explains why CO2 does and H2O does not cause climate change?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2016
thus I accepted your link to the sciencemag article even though it is six years old and somewhat out of date
@dusty
Science doesn't "go out of date"
it is either good science or it is bad science and refuted by evidence
Given that you don't have evidence refuting the science then we can demonstrate that it's good science... plus add in the fact that it's validated by other studies as well
Can you point me to a more recent study that explains why CO2 does and H2O does not cause climate change?
1- which study? Lacis et al?
if so, then continue reading the study, you will see that there is a link between the two, and then read about forcing, noncondensing GHG's and why the cycle is linking WV and CO2

please be specific when answering... i aint psychic. if you ask about a study when i've linked more than one....
katesisco
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2016
Makes you wonder when our current 'drowned' coastlines were set when the last interglacial had higher ocean levels than now?
I suspect that the cycle of the incurring solar body is responsible. It comes in over a period of maybe a decade during which the higher core temps of the Earth heat the oceans and put more water vapor in the air, it departs leaving the water vapor to cool leading to an ice age, mini or otherwise. Science.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2016
11- which study? Lacis et al?
if so, then continue reading the study, you will see that there is a link between the two, and then read about forcing, noncondensing GHG's and why the cycle is linking WV and CO2
--Cap'n Stumpid
LOL
It is beyond amusing to see the Stumpid constantly pushing his goto reference, when it is so obvious that he lacks the capacity to read, far less comprehend, that piece of tripe.
Hey Cap'n, have a look at how much manmade CO2 was emitted in the last 16 years compared to the previous and then compare the temperatures during those periods. I suggest that you get someone with a brain to assist you.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2016
Science doesn't "go out of date"
it is either good science or it is bad science and refuted by evidence
I didn't place any label on it. But since it is six years old and I recall several articles on PO that seemed to expand on the topic that you might have better links to more recent findings.
Can you point me to a more recent study that explains why CO2 does and H2O does not cause climate change?
1- which study? Lacis et al?
if so, then continue reading the study, you will see that there is a link between the two, and then read about forcing, noncondensing GHG's and why the cycle is linking WV and CO2
I did; and I did. Their statements are vague and ambiguous. I don't understand why condensing GHGs are dismissed while noncondensing GHGs are emphasized.

please be specific when answering... i aint psychic. if you ask about a study when i've linked more than one....
If "your link to the sciencemag article" is not clear, how should I refer to it?
leetennant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2016
Makes you wonder when our current 'drowned' coastlines were set when the last interglacial had higher ocean levels than now?
I suspect that the cycle of the incurring solar body is responsible. It comes in over a period of maybe a decade during which the higher core temps of the Earth heat the oceans and put more water vapor in the air, it departs leaving the water vapor to cool leading to an ice age, mini or otherwise. Science.


Makes you wonder when our current 'drowned' coastlines were set when the last interglacial had higher ocean levels than now?
I suspect that the cycle of the Comet Elenin is responsible. It comes in over a period of maybe a decade during which the higher core temps of the Earth heat the oceans and put more water vapor in the air. It departs leaving the water vapor to cool leading to an ice age, mini or otherwise.
In fact, it's coming into our inner social system now so clearly responsible for current warming. Science.
cjones1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2016
I did not recall any mention whether her data agrees or disagrees with the Milankovitch cycles. Lunar and solar cycles are not compared either. As I understand it, there was no permanent polar ice cap on the Northern hemisphere until about 2.5 mya. Humans have less to do with the global warming/cooling cycles than the AGW/Luddhite/Malthusian acolytes would have us believe.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2016
But since it is six years old and I recall several articles on PO that seemed to expand on the topic that you might have better links to more recent findings
@Dusty
1- articles are not the same as studies. an article is the opinion of the author, not the methodology-constrained science with evidence, experimentation, peer reveiw, etc...

2- before we start talking about anything recent, why not first learn why the study is important and it's contents. especially the parts about how WV and CO2 interact and non-condensing GHG's
I don't understand why condensing GHGs are dismissed while noncondensing GHGs are emphasized
start with Para.4
how should I refer to it?
the author or link, such as "Lacis et al" or http://science.sc...f9ea38ee

that way there is no confusion

Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2016
@dusty cont'd
Their statements are vague and ambiguous.
i didn't see that. in fact, i thought it was pretty clear what they were saying
I don't understand why condensing GHGs are dismissed...
also see where it says
In round numbers, water vapor accounts for
you can search for the phrase and continue reading from there

also note: when there is a reference, it's a good idea to read the references material as well

this may well help you determine what is actually being said and the evidence behind it
This is also the reason it takes so long to really read a study: it takes time to locate and also read the references
If "your link to the sciencemag article" is not clear
considering it was not also noted that the 2nd paragraph was also specifically about that one Science Mag link....

also answered above: stick to the typical reference style most use here (like Lacis et al or Lacis et al, OCT 2010 DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653) or use a link

mbee1
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2016
The headline and the study are total BS. How can you know it is total BS? Trees are coming to light under a melting glacier in Alaska about a thousand years old. It had to be warmer in the entire northern hemisphere for those trees to grow than today as no trees are currently growing where the ice is melting .The study is BS. If one considers that the glaciers covering large parts of the northern and southern hemisphere all melted off in a few hundred years per studies around 12000 years ago, it must have been warmer unless ice back than was using a different set of physics rules.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2016
The headline and the study are total BS. How can you know it is total BS? Trees are coming to light under a melting glacier in Alaska about a thousand years old. It had to be warmer in the entire northern hemisphere for those trees to grow than today as no trees are currently growing where the ice is melting .The study is BS. If one considers that the glaciers covering large parts of the northern and southern hemisphere all melted off in a few hundred years per studies around 12000 years ago, it must have been warmer unless ice back than was using a different set of physics rules.

Physics rules have not changed. The greenhouse gas effect is simple physics and it has not changed. Physics hasn't changed, but maybe your political perspective has and that is why your a climate change denier.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.