We can fix this with a tax, you know
How climate change choked ancient life to death — and why it could happen again
Scientists say rapidly warming oceans played a key role in the world’s biggest mass extinction, 252 million years ago, and could point to the risks that lie ahead in an era of similarly rapid climate change.
The latest analysis, published in this week’s issue of the journal Science, puts together computer modeling of ancient ocean conditions and a close look at species characteristics to fit new pieces into a longstanding puzzle: What were the factors behind the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, also known as the Great Dying?
The Permian-Triassic die-off dwarfed the extinction event that killed off the dinosaurs almost 190 million years later. About 70 percent of land-based species became extinct, but the toll was even greater in Earth’s seas. An estimated 96 percent of marine species were snuffed out.
Grain of salt?
The computer modeling showed that the warmer oceans lost about 80 percent of their oxygen. About half of the ocean seafloor, mostly at deeper depths, became completely oxygen-free.
So, no direct observations?
Penn noted that the computer models could be applied to future ocean conditions as well as past conditions, with worrisome results.
“Under a business-as-usual emissions scenario, by 2100, warming in the upper ocean will have approached 20 percent of warming in the late Permian. And by the year 2300, it will reach between 35 and 50 percent,†he said. “This study highlights the potential for a mass extinction arising from a similar mechanism under anthropogenic climate change.â€
Well good news. With the coming mini-ice age the oceans are set to give up their heat.
Did you know that in 1990 Hansen of NASA predicted a global cooling event and then 12 years later he was all on board of the AGW bandwagon. But the science is settled.
Did you know that in 1936 it was the hottest year on record in the USA and yet when you look at the temperature date from NOAA and NASA it is missing. They have weeded it out.
The hockey stick what can be said. The tree ring data which disputed the hockey stick by Mann was thrown out and voilla the world is being ravaged by heat.
Did you know AGW is a lie? did you know that 100 molecules of co2 is going to destroy the World. 100 molecules. Oh Im sorry lets say 200 molecules out of a million. Thats like a speck of dust in the Superdome.
Did you know the UN has begun spraying the atmosphere with heat resisting chemicals in the midst of a cooling sun and the earth moving farther and farther away from the sun.
Did you know that almost all of the heat records are totally bogus and made up numbers by are you ready……
sit down now…..
This will come as a shock….
UNELECTED BUREACRATS who cant be fired and who can pretty much do as they damn well please.
And that in a nutshell is Global warming as of the end of 2018.
Alternatively, one can look at the overwhelming data supporting that the Earth is warming.
According to you, the Earth is not warming and the ice is not melting. All the data are faked.
Good lord, can you support any of your claims with evidence?
Can you support your claims with data the environuts used that wasn’t cooked in the books?
Yes. There are thousands of supporting scientific papers published each year.
You can look them up.
Do you have evidence (not in Denier blogs) that support the contention that the data are faked?
Here’s an interesting article discussing the academic impact of climate change papers. Note the #2 most published author is Richard Tol, a so-called “skeptic”. Doesn’t that argue that “skeptics”, although a minority, are not necessarily oppressed?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-most-cited-climate-change-papers
And here’s just one widely cited paper on sea surface temperature measurement inconsistencies:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
N.B. – This paper caused a “climategate’ type firestorm in the deniosphere and is still inaccurately described as “irrefutable proof” of data manipulation.
Funny how all your nonsense comes from environut sources, but “Denier” blogs are verboten.
And skeptics are hardly the minority. If they were, your idiotic ideas would be implemented and every state capital and DC would look like Paris.
I would be more than happy to look at the overwhelming false data with you. I am certain you haven’t a clue about any of it.
Sure I can support my claim. But not once have I seen you support yours. I have posted dozens of quotes from existing sources including NOAA, IPCC and NCAR’s to support my contentions. You simply say the earth is warming from co2 and everyone thinks so.
Awesome. I will continue to point out the lie that is Global warming. And it is a lie.
The U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) Decided that the 1218 stations that have observed weather were wrong and so their readings were changed upwards to show a warming trend. Randomly using scientific methods of course.
OMG TIME OF OBSERVATION caused a cooling effect. So what did they do? Yeah they agreed it was imperative that all temperature readings be taken at their hottest point each day, Rather than having an hourly reading and then given a total temperature divided by 24 or 12 or whatever use was in place at the time, changes were made to read the temperature at the warmest part of the day and to use the warmest temperature of each day rather than an anomalously mundane average of each day.
So for example if its 50 degrees in the morning but 99 in the after noon and 38 at midnight. Station XX must report 99 degrees. Yep its hotter than hell in XX town even though they might have suffered frost that night because of the imminent cold front moving through.
From their report:
The raw USHCN temperature records are adjusted (homogenized) to attempt to remove biases
introduced by these inhomogeneities. Two distinct adjustments are performed on USHCN data: a
correction for time of observation [Karl et al., 1986], and a Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm
(PHA) to detect and remove all other biases [Menne and Williams, 2009]. The adjustments to
USHCN records have been evaluated extensively using synthetic data [Williams et al., 2012;
Venema et al., 2012], and they generally perform well in removing both regional and local biases
independent of the sign of the bias.
Well my gosh their you go. Lets adjust their temperature. Even though they report 76 degress we think it should be 80 degrees therefore we have written an alogrithum to root out the BIAS in reporting. LOLOLOL. Bias? It is pretty simple. If its 70 degrees when they think it should be 80 the believe it is reported bias and the temperatures are changed to reflect and root out this bias when in fact all they would have to do is call the local weather station and get the temperature from FEDERALLY OWNED AND RUN AIRPORTS. But of course this would verify it was in fact 70 degrees. not 80. Can’t have that.
As fare as NOAA is concerned when you look at a weather map of the entire world do you really believe that on any given 24 hour period they have date for one billion pixels on their map? Seriously do you believe that?
No this is how they work. Overhead sattelites are taking temperature measurements and then this is fed into a algorithm derived modeling computer which takes into account weather patters ect. Then you receive this awesomely accurate picture of hot spots around the globe even when its snowing because their models do not take into account the fact their weather temperature readings for any given spot is days old and things have changed in 4-5 days.
Yet the Press grabs this map and waves it around screaming we are all going to die.
Do you deny the sun has an influence on the temperature of the earth? Do you believe that if we grow farther away from the sun in our orbit that the inverse square rule applies. Mean the farther you move your hand from the flame of your camp fire the less heat you feel. Do you believe that sunspots affect our magnetosphere? Do you believe that the earth is in cycle 24 of 25 cycles and that at the moment we are in sunspot cycle 24 at its maximum? Do you believe that the sun is very, very quiet as far as solar activity goes and by historical standards will only grow weaker as it enters a historically tracked 400 year cycle in which the sun’s heat is reduced?
Answer some questions or get out of town. Your answer to everything is to have no answers other than to make fun of anyone who would dare to deny AGW.
AGW is a farce and has been proven by Nobel Laurettes in Climate Science. They have actually given lectures in which the entire process is driven by funding. Your not funded if you cant prove to…..
Prove to who? Who needs this information so badly when presidents come and go. Senators come and go. Representatives come an go? Who needs this and who funds this?
That would be unelected Buracrats who cannot be fired, are bought and paid for by people who benefit from a warming planet. Billionaires who want coal crushed so they can then buy all the coal stocks of a crushed coal company like George Soros who bought massive amounts of cheap coal stocks of a company Obama put out of business.
Now why would a billionaire do that? Because he knows china, india and the far east will continue to burn coal for the next 30-40 years and he will get even more richer. Cant have them burning clean natural gas can we.
I could go on. Perhaps that will be the next book I write. I know so much about the global warming scam that I consider myself an expert and can bring out a 1000 facts to beat Michael Mann into the ground with his fake tree ring data to correlate his hide the decline hockey stick, were all gonna die mantra.
Perhaps that will be the next book I write.
Really?
You appear to trust sun cycle predictions more than thermometers? When it’s pointed out that ice is melting, you call it fake data. It’s all faked by scientists in it for the money.
It’s a Deep State conspiracy headed by Russian polit-bureaucrat communists wanting to force patriots to pay taxes to send to shithole countries.
We look forward to your “next” book.
Aw, nignorant angry little negro fella from st. louis seeking attention again by replying “is not”.
The fact is there’s more ice now than ever.
The polar bears aren’t extinct, although the same can’t be said for functioning brain cells you once might have possessed.
There is? Supporting evidence?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18949-the-history-of-ice-on-earth/
Been all over the fake news the last few years.
So, no. You have no evidence. Why? Because your claim is untrue.
The Earth has had periods of 100s of MILLIONS of years where ice covered the entire planet. And even you must be familiar with the glacial periods between the interglacials (the current interglacial is the Holocene). Is there more ice now than the Little Ice Age, ending little more than a hundred years ago? Is there more ice now than in the 1970s?
Are you humiliated? You can recoup some dignity by saying you made a mistake.
No, it’s completely true.
As I say, been all over the fake news.
Since I’m right, why would I be humiliated? You ought to be, for spreading lies, but, ever since Uncle Joe told all of you any lie to advance the agenda is OK, you have no shame.
Jeff,
You have been schooled on the junk science of the CO2 religion. But the real purpose of efforts for so called climate control has been global government and excessive taxation, that just ended with the French riots and the spread of the movement. So the argument is now over.
dave,
You and fromwhiz are neck and neck for the dumbest Covian. Whiz gets the nod for his prodigious output.
Bloggers like Teach and “leaders” like tRump rely on followers such as you.
Do YOU believe there is more ice now than ever?
Jeff,
That is your usual fall back position. Call everyone names, that does not change the fact your dream of world communism is over.
dave,
Your dream of global fascism is advancing. Congratulations.
How much ice is there supposed to be?
Why change the subject?
One lie at a time, please.
The misinformation whiz was spreading was that there is more ice on Earth now than ever before. That is clearly untrue.
Do you agree that there has been times with more ice on Earth than now?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18949-the-history-of-ice-on-earth/
I thought you asked about how much ice is on the earth so I inquired as to how much there should be. How is that changing the subject? Please answer me. How much ice should be on earth? You seem to be insisting there was more than now so I assume there was also less than now so what is the perfect amount? How can I tell if man is ruining the earth by too much ice or too little unless you know what the right amount is?
More ice now than over the last 10,000 yrs.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/
He didn’t specify Arctic ice.
Here’s what another commenter typed: The fact is there’s more ice now than ever.
Kye – NO! Bad commenter! You answer me!!! Is there more ice on Earth now than ever??
Are you guys so insecure that you can never admit when wrong. (Cue more subject changes).
Anyway, can we deal with this lie first?
If not, what would it matter? More Ice is more ice
There is not more ice.
Really? “In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in…..patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic oscillation and Arctic oscillation.†Plus, Antarctica is land ice. Greenland is land ice. “Sea ice†is mostly Arctic ice
Good job-refute the paper.
It wasn’t a paper, it was a link to the dishonest TricksZone.
Why are you changing the subject? Is tRump your daddy?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jqs.2929
Did you read the paper? LOL
Stein et al: “ the biomarker proxy records show minimum sea ice extent during the early Holocene….â€
And another study found modern Arctic sea ice cover is anomalously high and Arctic sea surface temperature is anomalously low realative to the rest of the http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf
Wasn’t aware we were discriminating here.
Cute. Move the goalposts. Typical.
Jethro, I’m answering you. I don’t know if there is more ice on earth now than ever. I’m sure there’s more than there has been at times before and I’m sure there’s less than there has been times before.
Now you answer me: How much ice is there supposed to be on earth? What is the perfect amount we’re shooting for here? And why?
“Relative to the rest of the Holoceneâ€
“It wasn’t a paper, it was a link to the dishonest NTZ.â€. Except the link was right there in front of your face-but I know this hard for some people. “Why are you changing the subject? What subject was changed? Good luck..
The fact is there’s more ice now than ever.
Agree or disagree?
You’re supposed to the the expert. You ought to know what all the “scientists” say.
Or do you just barf up position papers when told?
All one has to do is look at the USA’s prediction of weather in December in the ARCTIC and then look at Canada’s. They do not jive or come remotely close.
The USA says it is unusually warm in the arctic in December. Canada says it is normal or below normal for this time of year.
Why?
Canada needs to be accurate with their weather since thousands of people depend on weather accuracy for their lives. In the uSA you have unelected douchebags getting paid to drum up false reports. I used to use nice terms for these people but its becoming increasingly obvious they are bought and paid for for their bogus analysis.
The same people that keep democrats from being tried and put in jail while at the same time trying and putting in jail 100’s of Pubs for the same things.
But I digress.
Alaska is above normal. Arctic sea ice is expanding. 550 billion tones of snow have fallen on Greenland. According to everyone but the USA who says….its hot, damn hot and were all gonna die HOT.
LOLOLOLOL. The USA has become the lying masters of the world. No one believes a damn thing we say anymore. It’s no wonder no one respects America any longer.
I don’t believe anything you type.
Then he’s up on you because nobody believes anything you type.
It wasn’t a paper, it was a link to the dishonest TricksZone.
And yours aren’t?
Your dream of global fascism is advancing.
No your dream of global fascism is receding.
Say bye byes to the $15/hr.
And the subject change was…..what?
Obviously, from global ice (glaciers, sea ice, land ice sheets) to only Arctic sea ice.
Another commenter made the false claim that: The fact is there’s more ice now than ever.
We pointed out that the claim was false, and supplied a review of the history of global ice. “Skeptics” here then revised their claim to: More ice now than over the last 10,000 yrs. Which is also false. A link to Gosselin’s blog regarding Arctic sea ice was appended. Let’s note that Arctic sea ice is trivial in volume compared to the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.
It’s like one claiming that violent crime in the US had dropped precipitously since 1990, but another disagreeing by saying murders in Baltimore are higher in 2018 than 2017.
It’s like someone saying the incidence of intense tropical storms is rising but refuting it by saying there has been no increase in Cat 5 hurricanes making land in FL.
Words matter.
Not false, there is more ice.
You just ignore anything that contradicts your globalist Commie agenda and try to paper it over with more drivel.
Yes, J magically thinks the linked papers have been refuted, but they of course haven’t. And of course the papers talk about Arctic because that’s where it was supposed to be ice-free during the summer yrs ago.
You changed the subject, then moved the goalposts, as you usually do. And you’re still whining about it about after the facts were explained to you.
But you don’t even understand that the Earth is warming.
No, that’s your thing when you get cornered.
And, if the Earth is warming, it’s got nothing to do with man.
Jethro, I’m answering you. I don’t know if there is more ice on earth now than ever. I’m sure there’s more than there has been at times before and I’m sure there’s less than there has been times before.
Now you answer me: How much ice is there supposed to be on earth? What is the perfect amount we’re shooting for here? And why?
The question has no answer. Two billion years ago when the entire surface was covered with ice, was that the amount it was supposed to be? Modern humans should hope not. Or before Antarctica froze when the Earth was at least 10C warmer, was that what is was supposed to be? All of human evolution has occurred with the Antarctic ice sheet present. What we know is that human civilization took place during the current Holocene interglacial (warm) epoch (the past 12,000 years or so). At the current rate of loss, the Antarctic ice sheet still has a thousand years left. If completely melted sea level would hypothetically be up a couple hundred feet worldwide. It’s unlikely that future humans will allow that to happen.
All we have is the evidence that human society would be entering a brave new world if we allow global warming to continue. The decrease in ice volume of Arctic sea ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and mountain glaciers are neither good nor bad in themselves, but are indicators that the Earth is warming.
Oh, come on. You’re the big expert in all this and you can’t tell us how much ice there needs to be?
I’m sure one of your environut sites could come up with a figure that would ensure tons of taxes to fulfill a requirement that couldn’t be achieved.
Well, you say ” human society would be entering a brave new world if we allow global warming to continue” however, I don’t think we have the power to stop global warming or global cooling with our technology. I also figure the earth will warm and cool whether we like it or not.
You and some of the other commenters seem very well versed in climate change which I am not but it would seem to me if one is going to argue in favor of spending trillions of dollars and installing economic damaging regulations you all should at least have a goal in mind. You should be able to state unequivocally what to correct amount of ice should be and what the perfect temperature should be over all the earth. Absent that ability we cannot set a goal nor realize if we are succeeding.
I recall back in the 70’s they were calling for an ice age by the nineties. Nothin’, zip, zilch occurred. Then the “experts” called for global warming and that went kaput. Now you guys just rattle on about “climate change” which is quite ambiguous and disingenuous since as you have stated the earths climate is always in a state of change with or without mankind and with or without the burning of fossil fuels, jet planes or even Trump.
Another thing I’ve noticed among people I know who believe in man made climate change is they also all believe that Bruce Jenner is now a woman and they insist I agree with them or I’m a homophobe. Talk about denying science that is the pinnacle of science denial saying a male can declare himself a female. It doesn’t work like that. Maybe someday it will. Maybe someday a guy can go into a clinic have this snipped off, that sewn on, add a little DNA here take a little from there and when he emerges he’ll be a she. But right now when they do that they emerge as males with cut off balls and dicks, implanted boobs, on tons of steroids and still with a psycho-sexual disorder. But not females by any scientific definition of the word. And if folks who can’t discern a male from a female argues with me that humans are changing the climate in a detrimental way I necessarily doubt their scientific abilities and qualifications.
Kye,
I also figure the earth will warm and cool whether we like it or not.
The Earth warms and cools by physical mechanisms. The energy input comes from our Sun; the amount absorbed by the Earth depends on reflection off the surface and light not reaching the Earth (e.g., from aerosols blocking the sunlight). How much of the absorbed energy is radiated back into space depends on greenhouse gases. The amount of sunlight reaching the Earth also depends on the Earth’s orbit and angle of the Earth axis in relation to the Sun.
Almost all climate scientists, other scientists, scientific organizations, corporations, major religious bodies and governments accept that the Earth is warming from greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere.
You should be able to state unequivocally what to correct amount of ice should be
I explained that above. The target is not the amount of ice, but the average global surface temperature. As previously explained, the entirety of human civilizations evolved during the Holocene epoch, when the Earth’s temperature was no warmer than now. This doesn’t mean humanity won’t survive, just that humanity will survive on a drastically changed Earth.
I recall back in the 70’s they were calling for an ice age by the nineties.
Most climate scientists in the 70s were predicting warming. Most published climate papers predicted warming. The mass media picked up on a few papers that predicted cooling and a meme was born.
spending trillions of dollars and installing economic damaging regulations
We will transition to non-fossil fuel sources anyway. The transition will not cost trillions of dollars, and there is no reason to expect economic damage as severe as the world experienced during the Great Recession.
believe in man made climate change is they also all believe that Bruce Jenner is now a woman
Global warming is unrelated to transgender issues, but I appreciate your concerns. I find that those that don’t accept the evidence supporting global warming often don’t accept biological evolution either. It’s clear that global warming aligns with political affiliations.
Why do you think the POPE embraced Global Warming? I have a theory. His church is full of little boy rapists and IF he gets the church on board the AGW bandwagon then guess what…..You guys on the left have ignored what has gone on for eons now because?
Because he is an ally. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So the Catholic church embraced Global warming and the horny priests syndrome magically disappeared.
“I find that those that don’t accept the evidence supporting global warming often don’t accept biological evolution either.”
Evolution is a theory, a rather poor theory that doesn’t seem to take into consideration that no species has ever given rise to another species in recorded history. But hey, the dems are the “party of science” (that doesn’t understand science, and certainly not math).
What is your explanation for the diversity of species?
How do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
Anyway, I used evolution as a counterpoint to another commenter’s left-field link between understanding global warming and not hating the transgendered.
Why do you think that the same people who don’t accept the theory of global warming also don’t accept the theory of evolution?
“A few papers predicting cooling…â€. Nope, there was a consensus on global cooling , with hundreds of papers. “Almost all climate, scientists scientific organizations, corporations, major religious bodies and governments..â€. Wow-the ultimate appeal to authority. But love the “religious bodies†“corporations†and “governmentsâ€. Very scientific list there. And, as shown before, there’s no consensus on the matter, not that it would make a difference anyway. As far as organizations, did the directors vote or everybody in the organization vote? It matters. Did a simple majority of the directors-say, 51% vote in favor? It matters. If everybody voted, did a simple 51% majority mean they were for it? Because if so, that hardly would qualify as “all organizations agreeâ€. That’s why I love when the bed-waters bring up “scientific organizations†first, because it’s irrelevant and second because they have no answers to the questions I asked.
j,
Nope, there was a consensus on global cooling, with hundreds of papers.
That’s just not true. But you know that.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf
Cue the Trickster in 3, 2, 1…
“wettersâ€
the Globe will cool dramatically. Unlike Jethro who hasn’t gotten the memo yet the meme by climate scientists including Michael Mann, Roger Peilke and others is that We should not ignore Global warming because of global cooling.
My question to them is what do they expect us to do? Stop producing heat in the face of global freezing? They are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
A report by CBS news.
Seriously. The arctic is drying up but we need more icebreakers. This is because of what I reported yesterday. NOAA….its damn hot in the ARCTIC….Canada. Temperature are below average in December in the ARCTIC.
LIARS AND THIEFS RUN BY UNELECTED BUREACRATS at Noaa and other organizations in charge of GLOBAL WARMING…..OH GAWD WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!! Run I tell you. Run!!!
And here you are shouting OH GAWD WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!! Run I tell you. Run!!! because of a coming ice age.
Conspiracy much?
MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW.
Even if the rate of growth could be moderated enough to stabilize levels at about 550 ppmv, average temperatures might well rise by about 5 oC–with devastating effects for us earthlings, such as rising sea levels and dramatic changes in weather patterns.
But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not.In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals. Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.
This means that humanity will be hit by a one-two punch the likes of which we have never seen. Nature is as unforgiving to men as it was to dinosaurs; advanced civilization will not survive unless we develop energy sources that curb the carbon emissions heating the planet today and help us fend off the cold when the ice age comes. Solar, nuclear, and other non-fossil-Âfuel energy sources need to be developed now, before carbon emissions get out of hand. MIT alumni could play a prominent part in discovering the technology needed to keep us all going. And there are fortunes to be made from the effort. It’s worth thinking about.
And this says it all. This begs the question why the ardents of Global warming are all frothing at the mouth over the planet warming at all. In fact the only possible way to feed the masses is to open up new lands.
In the end it wont matter. Mankind will be huddling in shacks on the equator while mother nature ends mankinds journey. Honestly our only long term chance at surviving is to move to the stars, not tax fossil fuels..LOLOLOLOLOL.
I find that those that don’t accept the evidence supporting global warming often don’t accept biological evolution either.
Jeffery does his Mazie Hirono. Given she’s dumb as a box of rocks, it doesn’t speak well of him.
He’s also doing his bitter clinger. Fact is, if you’re smart enough to do your homework and know the books are cooked on global warming, you also see the validities of evolution, but, if you’re that smart, you have a broad enough worldview to see the Charlie was right when he said there were holes in his theory; also that a lot of those holes have never been plugged up.
As Charlie liked to say, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”.
Which pretty much describes Jeffery.
Yes- the “because evolution is true and the earth isn’t flat means the global warming scam is real†argument.
One of these days, we have to get him to explain how the eye as a mechanism does not evolve but seems to miraculously appear.
Then again, one accepts a theory. One doesn’t believe in it.
Actually evolution is accepted as is global warming. The Flat Earth Society votes Republican.