Earth risks tipping into 'hothouse' state: study

August 6, 2018 by Kerry Sheridan
A dried corn field is pictured on August 6, 2018 in Mitschdorf, eastern France, as a heatwave sweeps across Europe

The planet urgently needs to transition to a green economy because fossil fuel pollution risks pushing the Earth into a lasting and dangerous "hothouse" state, researchers warned on Monday.

If continues to melt, forests are slashed and greenhouse gases rise to new highs—as they currently do each year—the Earth will pass a tipping point.

Crossing that threshold "guarantees a climate 4-5 Celsius (7-9 Fahrenheit) higher than pre-industrial times, and sea levels that are 10 to 60 meters (30-200 feet) higher than today," cautioned scientists in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

And that "could be only decades ahead," they said.

What is 'Hothouse Earth'?

"Hothouse Earth is likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many," said the article by scientists at University of Copenhagen, Australian National University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

Rivers would flood, storms would wreak havoc on coastal communities, and coral reefs would be eliminated—all by century's end or even earlier.

Global average temperatures would exceed those of any interglacial period—meaning warmer eras that come in between Ice Ages—of the past 1.2 million years.

Melting polar ice caps would lead to dramatically higher sea levels, flooding coastal land that is home to hundreds of millions of people.

"Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if 'Hothouse Earth' becomes the reality," said co-author Johan Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Where is the tipping point?

Researchers suggest the tipping point could come once the Earth warms to 3.6 Fahrenheit (2 Celsius) over pre-industrial times.

The planet has already warmed 1 C over pre-industrial times, and is heating up at a rate of 0.17 C per decade.

"A 2 C warming could activate important tipping elements, raising the temperature further to activate other tipping elements in a domino-like cascade that could take the Earth System to even higher temperatures," said the report.

This cascade "may tip the entire Earth system into a new mode of operation," said co-author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Selection of natural phenomena which could become dangerous for the climate if they reach their 'tipping points'

Experts also worry about phenomena like wildfires, which will spread as the planet gets hotter and drier and have the potential to accelerate carbon dioxide buildup and .

How they calculated this

The "Perspective" article is based on previously published studies on tipping points for the Earth.

The scientists also examined conditions the Earth has seen in the distant past, such as the Pliocene period five million years ago, when CO2 was at 400 ppm like today.

During the Cretaceous period, the era of the dinosaurs some 100 million years ago, CO2 levels were even higher at 1,000 ppm, largely due to volcanic activity.

To state that 2 C is a no-return threshold "is new," said Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London, who was not involved in the study.

The study authors "collated previously published ideas and theories to present a narrative on how the threshold change would work," he said.

"It's rather selective, but not outlandish."

How to stop it

People must immediately change their lifestyle to be better stewards of the Earth, the researchers said.

Fossil fuels must be replaced with low or zero emissions energy sources, and there should be more strategies for absorbing carbon emissions such as ending deforestation and planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide.

Soil management, better farming practices, land and coastal conservation and carbon capture technologies are also on the list of actions.

Yet even if humans stopped emitting greenhouse gases, the current warming trend could trigger other Earth system processes, called feedbacks, driving even more warming.

These include permafrost thaw, deforestation, loss of northern hemisphere snow cover, sea ice and polar ice sheets.

Researchers say it's not certain that the Earth can remain stable.

"What we do not know yet is whether the climate system can be safely 'parked' near 2 C above preindustrial levels, as the Paris Agreement envisages," said Schellnhuber.

Smoke billowing over a plant in a suburb of Lille on December 5, 2015 in Lille, northern France

Ten ways the planet could tip into 'Hothouse Earth'

Even if humanity slashes greenhouse gas emissions in line with Paris climate treaty goals, the planet could overwhelm such efforts and irretrievably tip into a hellish 'hothouse' state, top scientists warned Monday.

Under such a scenario, Earth's average temperature would stabilise 4 or 5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, rather than the 1.5 C to 2 C (2.7 or 3.6 Fahrenheit) cap called for in the 196-nation pact.

As it is, the world is struggling to curb the manmade carbon pollution that—with only one degree Celsius of warming so far—amplifies the likelihood and intensity of deadly heatwaves, droughts and superstorms.

Simply put, climate change continues to outpace the transition to a green, clean global economy.

But that challenge will become exponentially more difficult if Earth itself gets into the act, the researchers reported in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Tipping points

No less than ten distinct facets of what scientists call the Earth System could switch from neutral or helpful to harmful, eventually dumping more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere than all human activity combined.

Most have temperature "tipping points" beyond which the release of these planet-warming gases would be irreversible, at least on a human time scale.

"The feedback process becomes self-perpetuating after a critical threshold is crossed," the study said.

"The Earth System may be approaching a planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing, rapid pathway towards much hotter conditions—Hothouse Earth."

A polluted day in Hohhot, north China's Inner Mongolia region in 2015

Weakened carbon 'sinks'

Earth's forests and oceans have together absorbed more than half of carbon pollution over the last several decades, even as those emissions grew.

But forests are shrinking, and oceans are showing signs of CO2 saturation, according to recent studies.

These carbon sponges or 'sinks', in other words, may be weakening.

(Not so) permafrost

Methane and CO2 trapped in the increasingly misnamed permafrost of Russia, Canada and northern Europe is roughly equivalent to 15 years of emissions at today's levels.

The release of these gases—negligible so far—would speed global warming and, in effect, hasten their own escape, what scientists call positive feedback.

Similarly, rock-like formations in shallow ocean waters called methane hydrates—prime suspects for episodes of rapid global warming millions of years ago—are also vulnerable to global warming, but at what threshold remains unknown.

Forest 'dieback'

Global warming of 3 C could condemn 40 percent of the Amazon forests to dieback, a process that would reach well into the next century, according to recent research.

Accidental or land-clearing fires—not accounted for in these models—could hasten this destruction.

In Canada, forests that gained CO2-absorbing biomass for most of the 20th century began to lose it around 1970, due mainly to climate-related insect infestations and fires.

Fog spreads accross an agriculture field in the early morning on the outskirts of the Pakistani city of Lahore on December 4, 2014

Taken together, these forest dieoffs would release billions of tons of carbon into the air.

Less snow = more heat

Dramatically shrinking polar sea ice, especially in the Arctic, means the deep blue ocean water that takes its place absorbs as much of the Sun's radiative force—about 80 percent—as was reflected back into space by snow's mirror-like surface.

The Arctic's will likely see its first ice-free summer before mid-century, and—in a 2C world—could be that way one-in-four years.

Over the last four decades, minimum sea ice extent has dropped by about 40 percent.

Ice sheets, sea level

Experts disagree on how much global warming it will take to condemn the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and how quickly they would melt, but all agree that such a tipping point exists, with estimates ranging from 1 C to 3 C.

The consequences for humankind would be catastrophic: Two-thirds of the world's megacities are less than 10 metres above sea level, as is much of the agricultural land that feeds them.

Together, West Antarctica's and Greenland's frozen reservoirs would lift ocean by 13 metres.

Another 12 metres of potential sea level rise is locked in parts of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet that are far more susceptible to climate change than once thought.

Cascading dominoes

All of these processes are interconnected, the authors note, and the collapse of one could trigger another.

"The risk of tipping cascades could be significant at a 2 C temperature rise, and could increase sharply beyond that point."

"This cascade of events may tip the entire Earth system into a new mode of operation," said co-author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The "carrying capacity" of a 4 C or 5 C degree world, he has said previously, could drop to a billion people.

Explore further: Planet now at risk of heading toward 'hothouse Earth' state

More information: Will Steffen el al., "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene," PNAS (2018). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

Related Stories

Planet now at risk of heading toward 'hothouse Earth' state

August 6, 2018

Keeping global warming to within 1.5-2 degrees C may be more difficult than previously assessed, according to researchers. An international team of scientists has published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy ...

Formation of coal almost turned our planet into a snowball

October 9, 2017

While burning coal today causes Earth to overheat, about 300 million years ago, the formation of coal brought the planet close to global glaciation. For the first time, scientists show the massive effect in a study to be ...

Recommended for you

48 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aksdad
2 / 5 (24) Aug 06, 2018
Wow. I'm going to burn all our plastic straws. That should help.

My favorite line from the study:

How credible is this analysis? There is significant evidence from a number of sources that the risk of a planetary threshold and thus, the need to create a divergent pathway should be taken seriously

In other words, they haven't tested any of their hypotheses to see if they are right (in fact it is impossible to test them), but there's sure a lot of evidence that they could be right. Or not.

This is the kind of study that gives climate science a bad name; all speculation and no actual science. Science is that hard, boring thing where you develop tests then run them to validate your hypothesis.
marcush
4.2 / 5 (26) Aug 06, 2018
My favorite line from the study:

How credible is this analysis? There is significant evidence from a number of sources that the risk of a planetary threshold and thus, the need to create a divergent pathway should be taken seriously


In other words, they haven't tested any of their hypotheses to see if they are right (in fact it is impossible to test them), but there's sure a lot of evidence that they could be right. Or not.


Can you prove that you will have a serious car accident in the future? Do you wear a seatbelt nevertheless??

Its called common sense.

howhot3
3.9 / 5 (25) Aug 06, 2018
GREAT ARTICLE! Scientist have been saying this all along. Each and every point made has been studied in depth, analysis reviewed, reports written, peer reviewed, and published. You should be afraid of what is says. It's pretty much a matter of fact what will happen.

Of course, the Trump supporter types will have none of this. It's based to much on facts and figures, Isn't that true @askdad? Well here is on news headline from today;

https://www.washi...f57f062a

It sounds like the beginning of the movie "Soylent Green" doesn't it?

marcush
4.1 / 5 (24) Aug 06, 2018
This is the kind of study that gives climate science a bad name; all speculation and no actual science. Science is that hard, boring thing where you develop tests then run them to validate your hypothesis.


I'm not sure you really understand how science works. While it involves empirical evidence, that evidence can come from a variety of sources including specific experiments but also from observations of the natural world. Think of astronomy for example. The simplest hypothesis that is best supported by all the evidence is considered the most likely explanation.

As an overall test for how well climate science is doing you can check how well past modelling projections fit with the observed global temperature trend. Overall the modelling has done very well.

http://www.realcl...vations/
luke_w_bradley
not rated yet Aug 06, 2018
Does anyone know of a source where someone has painted a complete picture of what life on Earth will in scenario where it only supports a billion people? You hear about this or that effect but never even hear about what the composite picture will look like.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (24) Aug 06, 2018
This article is a Chicken Little faerie tale fantasy. It's sickening how aggressive they are getting.
szore88
1.8 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2018
Embrace Socialism! Obey!
Dobbin
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 06, 2018
The assertion that there exists a tipping point once we fall off of a delicately balanced set of conditions assumes that the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms. While positive feedback exists, like snow cover for instance, the fact that the Earth has had CO2 levels that were 10x current levels indicates that negative feedback must have a greater effect. If a hothouse latchup were likely, then it would have happened long ago. The stabilizing effect of negative feedback probably comes from cloud cover which apparently dwarfs all the positive feedbacks..
rrwillsj
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2018
Embrace Fascism! Obey and feed your children to Moloch!
mtnphot
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2018
Its only chicken little to those who will not see the big picture;
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2018
The assertion that there exists a tipping point once we fall off of a delicately balanced set of conditions assumes that the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms. While positive feedback exists, like snow cover for instance, the fact that the Earth has had CO2 levels that were 10x current levels indicates that negative feedback must have a greater effect. If a hothouse latchup were likely, then it would have happened long ago. The stabilizing effect of negative feedback probably comes from cloud cover which apparently dwarfs all the positive feedbacks..

Actually there is a lot of geological/fossil evidence that these tipping points exist. There are multiple cases where the temperature of the Earth changed very abruptly. The main question these days is, where exactly are the tipping points?
howhot3
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2018
Embrace your new normal denier goons! Moloch will love his lunch.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2018
The assertion that there exists a tipping point once we fall off of a delicately balanced set of conditions assumes that the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms. While positive feedback exists, like snow cover for instance, the fact that the Earth has had CO2 levels that were 10x current levels indicates that negative feedback must have a greater effect. If a hothouse latchup were likely, then it would have happened long ago. The stabilizing effect of negative feedback probably comes from cloud cover which apparently dwarfs all the positive feedbacks..

Actually there is a lot of geological/fossil evidence that these tipping points exist. There are multiple cases where the temperature of the Earth changed very abruptly. The main question these days is, where exactly are the tipping points?
says axe

It's hard to tell due to the large variations of planet enviro and fluctuations in most locations.
Anonym518498
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2018
Taxpayer money for this garbage. PNAS is a shill for the totalitarians. And remember... most published 'research' is wrong
howhot3
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2018
Actually @axemaster; we know where the tipping points should be. So the question is, should you act now and prevent an impending global extinction event? Or should you delay any preventive actions and gamble with a possible extinction event?

Seems to be that your only reason for the later option is stubbornness and an aggressive growth of stupid in your persona. The tipping points are very real, scientifically established data points that are time tested in Earth's history. They work as advertised.
barakn
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2018
While positive feedback exists, like snow cover for instance, the fact that the Earth has had CO2 levels that were 10x current levels indicates that negative feedback must have a greater effect. -Dobbin
You can only be referring to the end of the Devonian and beginning of the Carboniferous, a time marked by numerous extinction events collectively known as the Late Devonian extinction. How little comfort in knowing the negative feedbacks may not kick in until the CO2 levels have increased by an order of magnitude and the seas have become suffocating cesspools reeking of hydrogen sulfide. I'm sorry, what side of the argument were you on again?
Solon
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2018
I think the Russians have something to do with it, can't prove it, but I don't see why they wouldn't.
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2018
The assertion that there exists a tipping point once we fall off of a delicately balanced set of conditions assumes that the climate is dominated by positive feedback mechanisms. While positive feedback exists, like snow cover for instance, the fact that the Earth has had CO2 levels that were 10x current levels indicates that negative feedback must have a greater effect. If a hothouse latchup were likely, then it would have happened long ago. The stabilizing effect of negative feedback probably comes from cloud cover which apparently dwarfs all the positive feedbacks..


Actually it's the giant pink dragon in my kitchen. She's just having a nap right now.
yep
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2018
Embrace Socialism! Obey!

That's more totalitarian. Socialism is more like the New Deal that was put in place after the stock market crunch and depression. It laid the foundations for decades of prosperity by taxing income of the wealthy and creating public works, social security etc. The huge increase in labor unions guaranteed proper living wages and conditions. Safegauards dismantled by both parties ultimately caused the 2008 collapse. We are surpassing the wealth disparity of feudal societies where we were during the depression to the Pharaohnic societies of ancient Egypt.
The scare tactic is Russia was socialist but the reality was Socialism was dead two weeks after the Russian Revolution.
People duped, fighting agaist their best intrests as the funnels of economics pour into the fewest of hands making the decisions to keep the whole pie.
yep
1 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2018
Embrace Socialism! Obey!

That's more totalitarian. Socialism is more like the New Deal that was put in place after the stock market crunch and depression. It laid the foundations for decades of prosperity by taxing income of the wealthy and creating public works, social security etc. The huge increase in labor unions guaranteed proper living wages and conditions. Safegauards dismantled by both parties ultimately caused the 2008 collapse. We are surpassing the wealth disparity of feudal societies where we were during the depression to the Pharaohnic societies of ancient Egypt.
The scare tactic is Russia was socialist but the reality was Socialism was dead two weeks after the Russian Revolution.
People duped, fighting agaist their best intrests as the funnels of economics pour into the fewest of hands making the decisions to keep the whole pie.
yep
3 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2018
Embrace Socialism! Obey!

That's more totalitarian. Socialism is more like the New Deal that was put in place after the stock market crunch and depression. It laid the foundations for decades of prosperity by taxing income of the wealthy and creating public works, social security etc. The huge increase in labor unions guaranteed proper living wages and conditions. Safegauards dismantled by both parties ultimately caused the 2008 collapse. We are surpassing the wealth disparity of feudal societies where we were during the depression to the Pharaohnic societies of ancient Egypt.
The scare tactic is Russia was socialist but the reality was Socialism was dead two weeks after the Russian Revolution.
People duped, fighting agaist their best intrests as the funnels of economics pour into the fewest of hands making the decisions to keep the whole pie.
yep
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2018
Sorry operator error enabled by cookies fucking with my screen.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2018
Embrace Socialism! Obey!
That's more totalitarian. Socialism is more like the New Deal that was put in place after the stock market crunch and depression.


That is welfare capitalism or maybe social democracy. If you want a New Deal type of thing, then the first step is to stop using the S-word to describe it. It is a dirty word, and given its history, rightly so.
leetennant
5 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
As ShotmanMasio said, the welfare state that came out of World War II was and is NOT socialism. It was instead a buffer against socialism and fascism (in fact, all totalitarianism) by ensuring we did not once again develop the wealth disparity that is the direct driver of those ideologies. We then systematically decimated that entire system and, hey presto - the rise of radicalism and fascism again. Couldn't see that one coming.
Old_C_Code
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
Despite headline news, things are better for man on Earth than ever before. Lower crime, more food, longer lives, less poverty. Fortunately, something's working.
Gigel
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2018
This is the result of companies producing goods with a plan to have them replaced on a short term, of all that silly publicity trying to get you to put in as much of this drink or that food as possible, of the over-insistence of producers to flood the markets with dubious or already broken "goods" for the money, without any consideration for their utility, of letting people think it is OK to change your car every 2-3 years, of feeding peoples' greed in order to sell more instead of encouraging them to live a moderate, more fulfilling life.

Governments have put a pressure on peoples by taxation of goods or fuels, but have been shy to do the same with companies in order to curb resource wasting.

It is really not all right to change a good you use just because you want a new one. "New" is not worth the money and resources on its own.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
Can you prove that you will have a serious car accident in the future? Do you wear a seatbelt nevertheless??

Its called common sense.

-- Another Chicken Little Jackass brays.
This is the feeble way the AGW Cult fools its idiotic Chicken Littles into believing their PATHOLOGICAL LIES, by associating FACTS with the FICTION of their GloBULL warming.
It's a verified fact that seatbelts protects against injury and saves lives. So, can you find us a single peer reviewed paper that conclusively shows that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for GloBull warming?
But, first, share with us -- When and how you stopped burning fossil fuels? -- so that us Heretics, can join you in saving the world. Thanks.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
While positive feedback exists, like snow cover for instance, the fact that the Earth has had CO2 levels that were 10x current levels indicates that negative feedback must have a greater effect. -Dobbin
You can only be referring to HAWW..HEE.., a time marked by numerous extinction events collectively known as the Late Devonian extinction. How little comfort in knowing the negative feedbacks may not kick in until the CO2 levels have increased by an order of magnitude and the seas have become suffocating cesspools reeking of hydrogen sulfide. I'm sorry, what side of the argument were you on again?
-- Another Chicken Little Jackass brays.
The Late Devonian extinction left almost all land and freshwater life unaffected, while much of the ocean life died. Only, the ignorant Chicken Little Jackass would believe CO2 was responsible, because that's the magic of CO2 in the Cult's "science".
I'm sorry, what side of your shit-for-brains were you on again?
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2018
Ah, yes, antigoracle, the guy that drinks a fifth of whiskey before breakfast (or maybe it is breakfast) and then hurls meaningless insults at internet users all day. Because you left out a few important details, I'll supply them. What animals were on land during the Late Devonian extinction? Insects.

That's it. Just insects. Ectothermic, efficient, tolerant of high CO2, living in a much simpler ecosystem than we have today.

And because your reading comprehension is low, I never stated the CAUSE of the Late Devonian Extinction was CO2. You inferred that in your drunken stupor, you old sod.
benhowe75
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
I am appalled by the unabashed ignorance of some of the posts here. It is one thing to disagree about the appropriate and necessary measures we ought to be taking to mitigate the worst of climate disaster, but quite another to attack the scientists personally, deny all of the very robust evidence and sound logic. Discussions of political ideology belong elsewhere, there is no place for it where actual science is being conducted.
yep
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2018
I am appalled by the unabashed ignorance of some of the posts here. It is one thing to disagree about the appropriate and necessary measures we ought to be taking to mitigate the worst of climate disaster, but quite another to attack the scientists personally, deny all of the very robust evidence and sound logic. Discussions of political ideology belong elsewhere, there is no place for it where actual science is being conducted.

Maybe you have never heard of political science.
Politics definitely has a big effect on science. Unfortunately it is often ignoring, in favor of other agendas like paybacks to the people that spent the money to get them there. Nixon the drug war and money privates prisons have made being a good example.
unrealone1
not rated yet Aug 08, 2018
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."
https://www.nasa....n-losses
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2018
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise..."


"The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017..."
https://www.natur...8-0179-y
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2018
Active volcano discovered beneath Antarctic ice sheet could be contributing to rapidly melting glacier
https://www.indep...131.html
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2018
Active volcano discovered beneath Antarctic ice sheet could be contributing to rapidly melting glacier
https://www.indep...131.html]https://www.indep...131.html[/url]

Dr Robert Bingham, a glaciologist at the University of Edinburgh who has discovered dozens of Antarctic volcanoes, said the melting was probably not a major contributor.

"I don't think people should look at volcanoes underneath west Antarctica as a serious concern for causing instability," he said.

Same link
https://www.indep...131.html]https://www.indep...131.html[/url]
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2018
Ah, yes, antigoracle, the guy that drinks a fifth of whiskey before breakfast (or maybe it is breakfast) and then hurls meaningless insults at internet users all day. HAWW...HEE...HAWW...HEE..... I never stated the CAUSE of the Late Devonian Extinction was CO2. You inferred that in your drunken stupor, you old sod.

Ah, yes, barakn, the shit-for-brains who sticks his head where the sun don't shine and feeds, since that's where he gets his "brains". He then oozes that substance, as meaningless shite, at internet users, all day.
Get someone with an actual brain, to read your meaningless shite back to you. You responded to a comment that CO2 was once 10x higher than current levels, by claiming they must be referring to the Late Devonian EXTINCTION period. You then went on to claim that CO2 would lead to the seas becoming cesspools of H2S.
You old shit-for-brains.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2018
I love this one , from the tabloid press

''Experts disagree on how much global warming it will take to condemn the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and how quickly they would melt, but all agree that such a tipping point exists, with estimates ranging from 1 C to 3 C.''

''Experts'' eh LOL , they disagree '' , i'll bet, specially when the ice increases. Oh' but they agree' a tipping point exists '' thats right, like words on a page.

philstacy9
1 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2018
This is settled fakeness.
SwamiOnTheMountain
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
Whatever, I'll let your kids deal with this. =)
Joker23
1 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2018
Yikes. Man is the problem! ( where have we heard THAT before) Maybe we need those guys that predicted a Global Ice Age back in the early '70's. Better yet, a good nuclear war and the resultant nuclear winter?

More trolling for funding me thinks.
BoatRocker
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2018
"If you can't tend to your own planet, you don't deserve to live here. "
~From "The Arrival"
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2018
Antigoracle, I gather from your profanity-laced reply that you missed the subtleties of my argument. I think one thing you would agree on is that almost always in records of temperature vs. CO2, at least during the recent ice age cycle, that a rise in CO2 LAGS the rise in temperature, yes? And that's because something else triggers the release of the CO2 - a change in orbital parameters, a volcano, an asteroid, whatever. At this point your opinion will likely diverge, but the CO2, once it gets started, operates in a positive feedback manner where it increases the temperature, the increased temperature leads to CO2 being released from other sources, and so on. So CO2 acted as an agent of, but was not the cause of, the Late Devonian Extinction. In fact there's a great debate surrounding the causes, and there was likely more than one.
mrfixitrick
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2018
I think we need to draw attention to the fact that over 100 million humans died from the past couple of decades of air pollution (UN stats)...while everyone was so busy discussing the fine details of "CO2 levels" and "Global Warming".

The health effects from burning fuels can now be scientifically tracked to the source, and the worldwide liability runs into many hundreds of trillions of dollars.

It's time to stop the burning.
We have the technology.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2018
leetennant
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2018
AGW debunked.

https://youtu.be/m71uQPhwhTk


I'm sure that YouTube video overturns 200 years of global scientific inquiry.
zz5555
5 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
AGW debunked.

https://youtu.be/m71uQPhwhTk


I'm sure that YouTube video overturns 200 years of global scientific inquiry.

Since s/he doesn't understand science, any kind of gobbledygook is enough to overturn actual science.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
AGW debunked.

https://youtu.be/m71uQPhwhTk


I'm sure that YouTube video overturns 200 years of global scientific inquiry.

LOL! 200-years? That's laughable! AGWism is but a few decades old at most. Recall in the '70's we were supposed to experience a new ice-age.
Regardless, it is pointed out how every single model which relies on the currently accepted TSI models (all of them) are fundamentally and fatally flawed. It's not science, it's fanciful faerie tales of the Chicken Littles of the world.
leetennant
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2018
The first #climate scientist was arguably Joseph Fourier. In 1824 he concluded that the Earth's atmosphere kept the Earth warm

The 2nd #climate scientist is arguably John Tyndall who, in 1864, discovered the "heat trapping" quality of gases such as CO2.

Arrhenius (1896) first said that doubling CO2 would increase warming by 5-6 degrees. At the time many scientists disagreed mostly because hte idea of us increasing our emissions to that extent was unfathomable. It was in the 1950s that scientists began to be concerned about the global implications of large-scale increases in CO2 emissions and to commit time to studying it properly. Recent observations have broadly proven Arrhenius correct.

One day you people will form an opinion on something only *after* you study it and not before.

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.