Analysis of Pacific Ocean sediments shows doubling atmospheric CO2 might raise Earth’s temperature by up to 14 degrees, exceeding IPCC predictions, with historical data indicating significant future climate impacts.
Doubling the atmospheric CO2 levels could raise Earth’s average temperature by 7 to 14 degrees Celsius (13 to 25.2 degrees Fahrenheit), according to sediment analysis from the Pacific Ocean near California conducted by researchers from NIOZ and the Universities of Utrecht and Bristol.
The results were recently published in the journal Nature Communications.
“The temperature rise we found is much larger than the 2.3 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (4.1 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) that the UN climate panel, IPCC, has been estimating so far,” said the first author, Caitlyn Witkowski.
45-year-old drill core
The researchers used a 45-year-old drill core extracted from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. “I realized that this core is very attractive for researchers, because the ocean floor at that spot has had oxygen-free conditions for many millions of years,” said Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damsté, senior scientist at NIOZ and professor of organic geochemistry at Utrecht University.
“As a result, organic matter is not broken down as quickly by microbes and more carbon is preserved,” Damsté said. He was also the supervisor of Witkowski, whose doctorate thesis included this research.
Unique time series
“CO2 over the past 15 million years has never before been examined from a single location,” Witkowski said. The upper thousand meters of the drill core correspond to the past 18 million years.
From this record, the researchers were able to extract an indication of the past seawater temperature and an indication of ancient atmospheric CO2 levels, using a new approach.
Derived temperature
The researchers derived the temperature using a method developed 20 years ago at NIOZ, called the TEX86 method. “That method uses specific substances that are present in the membrane of archaea, a distinct class of microorganisms,” Damsté explains.
“Those archaea optimize the chemical composition of their membrane depending on the temperature of the water in the upper 200 meters of the ocean. Substances from that membrane can be found as molecular fossils in the ocean sediments, and analyzed to this day.”
CO2 from chlorophyll and cholesterol
The researchers developed a new approach to derive past atmospheric CO2 content by using the chemical composition of two specific substances commonly found in algae: chlorophyll and cholesterol. This is the first study to use cholesterol for quantitative CO2 and the first study to use chlorophyll for this time period. To create these substances, algae must absorb CO2 from the water and fix it via photosynthesis.
Damsté: “A very small fraction of the carbon on Earth occurs in a ‘heavy form,’ 13C instead of the usual 12C. Algae have a clear preference for 12C. However: the lower the CO2 concentration in the water, the more algae will also use the rare 13C. Thus, the 13C content of these two substances is a measure of the CO2 content of the ocean water. And that in turn, according to solubility laws, correlates with the CO2 content of the atmosphere.”
Using this new method, it appears that the CO2 concentration dropped from about 650 parts per million, 15 million years back, to 280 just before the industrial revolution.
Stronger relationship
When the researchers plot the derived temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels of the past 15 million years against each other, they find a strong relationship. The average temperature 15 million years ago was over 18 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit): 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today and about the level that the UN Climate Panel, IPCC, predicts for the year 2100 in the most extreme scenario.
“So, this research gives us a glimpse of what the future could hold if we take too few measures to reduce CO2 emissions and also implement few technological innovations to offset emissions,” Damsté said. “The clear warning from this research is: CO2 concentration is likely to have a stronger impact on temperature than we are currently taking into account!”
Reference: “Continuous sterane and phytane δ13C record reveals a substantial pCO2 decline since the mid-Miocene” by Caitlyn R. Witkowski, Anna S. von der Heydt, Paul J. Valdes, Marcel T. J. van der Meer, Stefan Schouten and Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté, 18 June 2024, Nature Communications.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-47676-9
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
82 Comments
As humans could survive +400° Celsius, the temperature shall indefinitely rise upto about +325° Celsius ! This is the heat humans produce every year and releasing it directly into rivers, oceans and atmosphere ! Forget all you know and parrot stories about climate ! Free report ondemand available.
As humans could survive +400° Celsius, the temperature shall indefinitely rise upto about +325° Celsius ! This is the heat humans produce every year and releasing it directly into rivers, oceans and atmosphere ! Forget all you know and parrot stories about climate ! Free report ondemand available.
I lol whenever I read articles about Co2 and thier claims of it increasing the world’s temperatures! The world is forever changing! The world tilt/rotation has changed as well as true north. If you don’t believe me look it up, and also the earth inner core rotation has slowed, and some claim changed direction. These major earth changes will have more impact on earth temperatures then these silly Co2 money grab claims! Paying more in taxes to corrupt governments so they can lower worlds temperatures…Really? They can’t even win war on drugs or solve homelessness…how much are they already stealing and both of those major issues have gotten far worse! Trees and plants need Co2! You start reducing Co2 too much life will die on earth! Please stop with these silly articles and go do your homework! You just look silly and indoctrinated not educated!
Even if all the factors you cite are independent of human behavior, the reality is that we can sit by and watch ourselves succumb to the new climate, or we can take action designed to mitigate human risk. Your method of do nothing, seems foolish. We are a smart species, perhaps we will find a solution, but not if we give up and decide there is nothing to be done.
Oft-repeated and debunked claims.
Earth’s climate has changed often in the past, but those changes probable killed billions of animals, including humans or pre-human primates. The humans that were around could just pick up and move, they didn’t have trillions of dollars of infrastructure they’d have to leave behind, not did they have fixed national borders to cross. And finally, those past temperature changes happened SLOWLY — the RATE of change today is unprecedented. It’s one thing to adapt to a big climate swing over tens of thousands of year, quite another to deal with it in a few centuries.
As for plants and CO2, this is just nonsense. Plants did just fine for centuries at 280 ppm CO2. We’re now at 425 ppm. Plants do a LITTLE with more CO2 — it’s called “CO2 Greening,” and all of the climate models account for it. But it’s very limited, because no matter how much CO2 you give to plants, some OTHER factor will still limit growth — sunlight, water, nutrients, etc. We are far above normal, historical CO2 levels — we’d have to get far below those before “life will die on Earth.”
You are the one who looks silly. Leave science to the scientists.
God’s word tell us the the sun will scorch the earth with fervent heat in the last days before the return of Christ Jesus. If man thinks he can stop what God says by throwing money at it he/she is very ignorant of God’s plan
“— it’s called “CO2 Greening,” and all of the climate models account for it.”
Do you have a citation to support that claim?
You claimed, “Plants do a LITTLE with more CO2.” According to NOAA, “Nature [journal] concludes that as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have increased since the start of the 20th century, plants around the world are utilizing 30 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2), spurring plant growth.” [Search for “Carbonyl sulfide] Furthermore, NASA has documented an increase in Leaf Area Index, stating “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, …”
[ https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12222 ] Some regions have shown an increase of over 16% , with an average of about 5% for land plants over the last two decades. They further state, “Taken all together, the greening of the planet over the last two decades represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests.” Also, they state, “The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” I wouldn’t call that “little.”
You said, “Leave science to the scientists.” You are talking about Earth science. Are you a scientist in any science related to climatology or atmospheric physics/chemistry?
God’s word? LOL. Yeah, let’s ignore science and put our faith in myths backed by ZERO evidence. Pathetic, just pathetic.
Just now true. Co2 ppm has been throughout history numerous times higher ppm than currently.
lol @ temperature changed slowly in the past.
The geological record shows that at the end of the last ice age around 40,000 years ago the temperature chaged 6 degrees (+ or minus 3) over a period of DECADES, not thousands of years. Guess the humans around at the time must have had coal fired powerstations lol.
Keep believing the climate change industry bulls*** and their favourite catch word “unprecedented” if you want. I live right on the coast, still waiting for the sea level rise that was supposed to swamp my place 10 years ago 🤣
“God’s word” is from the very first words in the Bible where he creates men and women to be the stewards of creation. And since this is at the beginning of the Bible, it must be pretty important. God did not say don’t worry about the environment because He is going to destroy the world with fire in the future. Your interpretation is lazy and ignorant thinking and contrary to God’s will as stated in Genesis. You are among the non-Christian false prophets that the Bible warns us about. Why not just tell your children and grandchildren that you are too selfish to care about the world that they inherit?
Re CO₂ greening, at temperatures above 40 to 45 °C chlorophyll and chloroplasts start to denature, stopping photosynthesis entirely. No photosynthesis, plants die! Assuming dehydration and other heat-related physical changes don’t kill them first.
I agree with you 100% and I’ve been saying similar stuff for years now.
Time is the key element, will we be here in 500 years from now or in one billion years time. The materials we take from the earth will absorb back over time and the earth will rejuvenate and flourish as it did 66 million years ago. Human condition is just a phase in earth’s timeline as it moves on over time.
Water is far more vital to plant life than CO2. When evaporation doubles for every degree of warming, your argument that plants will be better off is ludicrous. It just shows how little you know and how much you assume.
“It just shows how little you know and how much you assume.”
There is an old saying about how when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself. It is obvious that you are unfamiliar with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation
It basically says that for each degree (C) of increase in temperature the atmosphere’s capacity for holding water vapor increases about 7%. You don’t specify in your claim whether you are talking about the rate of evaporation or the total amount evaporated. Either way, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about. What would cause a supposedly sane person to make such a dogmatic statement and insult the commenter when it is obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about?
U hit it bang on.🥰
I suppose it makes sense, and I am a climate denier, because most of the climate change activists act nuts, but I’ll believe when the Kamal leaves here 747 grounded.
“ . . . it is these ocean state changes that are
1:02:28 correlated with the great disasters of the past impact can cause extinction but
1:02:35 it did so in our past only wants[once] that we can tell whereas this has happened over
1:02:40 and over and over again we have fifteen evidences times of mass extinction in the past 500 million years
1:02:48 so the implications for the implications the implications of the carbon dioxide is really dangerous if you heat your
1:02:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic to melt if you cause the temperature
1:03:01 gradient between your tropics and your Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
1:03:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen sulfide pulses . . . “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ako03Bjxv70
This comment tells so much about the grotesque denial mechanisms the human brain is capable of. Oh my ( non-existent) god.
Their
Haven’t we heard all this before. Time after time they make predictions and time after time they’re wrong. Yet each time they made these predictions it results paying more taxes. My city was supposed to be under water 20years ago. Guess what, it’s still here with no noticeable change in sea level. Last year they tried blaming forest fires in climate change yet the locals in Greece confirmed they had arrested numerous people for starting them. Don’t believe the news, the news isnt there to inform you, it’s there to push their agenda in you. Media is pushing misinformation but because they do it for the right people it’s ok.
All i know, is that there are island chains currently being engulfed by rising sea levels. Theyre not the most affluent places and people cannot afford to leave, nor is there much help or resources to offer. You can see the drastic change over about 20 years. Some islands gone completely now. Islands out in the ocean dont seem like much significance to us, but its definitely a sign of what may be to come, it is not a false concern, even if your location was not affected. (Maybe it wasnt affected and you saw no change is because something actually was done to mitigate it, iono) Yes, the earth is incredibly old and has gone through a slew of changes, including extreme climate effects. The creatures then were not able to do anything about the conditions, and guess what they died. So if we do nothing, we too will die. Yes, some of this is natural earth just being a dynamic planet, but humans unquestioningly have accelerated some of these processes, not just in terms of pollution but that we basically skewed the entire worlds ecosystem through our exploits and endeavors and developments and inventions. And now were in the midst of scrambling to try to level everything out. Part of the problem is the people in charge of overseeing the issue of climate change. Its an incredibly complicated, intricate field to navigate, as things are usually stacked and interdependent, such as chain reactions. Its a very real issue that the people in charge should have a better handle on the situation, instead of wasting money where it could allocated to systems, procedures and infrastructure that will help us. Even if this is “natural,” and we’ve done nothing but continue on with the course, we are not going to survive. I personally dont think there is enough cooperation between the people of the world to actually coordinate any viable solution. No one can get on the same page because everyone uses their own information as key and no one will agree. Not to mention the world runs on money. There is no way we can actually get companies and corporations to do anything positive if they think it will negatively affect their bottom line. Yo, we all f***
Also, for everyone out there: Just because something has not affected you or someone you know, doesnt suddenly make it false or impossible. Im sorry, but get over yourself. Your tiny scope of perspective does not speak for all. Even if 1000 people agree with you, please remember there are 8 billion of us on this planet. One size does not fit all. You do not own the entire worlds collective experience. Does that make you view wrong or unworthy of expression? No. Because it is your experience and is significant to you, you can keep that and hold fast, but dont act like other people are liars because it is different from yours. That kind of entitlement is mind blowing
“… there are island chains currently being engulfed by rising sea levels.”
Do you have a citation to support that claim? You may not ‘know’ what you think you know. From what I am reading, it appears that the governments of some islands are trying to get [guilt] money, based on unvalidated forecasts, to build up their infrastructure to support more tourism.
Just one of many, many reports on sea-level rise and impact on Pacific Islands:
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/sea-levels-rising-faster-pacific-than-elsewhere-says-wmo-report-2024-08-26/
It is real, and it is an existential threat to many inhabited islands.
And as for CO2 Greening, give me a break. Just Google “CO2 Greening” + “Climate Models.” More than you can read in a lifetime. Assuming you can read at that level at all.
Wow, the sea level only rises and engulfs poor island nations while remaining unchanged at places that have accurately recorded tide measurements for over a hundred years.
Just incredible that the sea can do that!!!
Sea level rise? CO2 levels bad??? What is the percentage of CO2 levels in the atmosphere? What is the percentage plants need to grow, thrive and survive? I like how they conveniently leave out this very important information. All you climate crazies have been crying the sky is falling since the 60’s and not one prediction has ever come true. Leonard Nemoi said we were gonna have another ice age in the 70’s. Look at all Al Gores predictions in his life time. Not one has come true. Seems a ton of people out there can’t think for themselves and just listen to people who have never been right about the environment and the world ending every couple years.
You might want to read this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/07/islands-that-climate-alarmists-said-would-soon-disappear-due-to-rising-sea-found-to-have-grown-in-size/
Show me example of one single one of THESE ISLANDS!!! Do Yourself a favour, grab a cup fill it 2/3 water fill the rest with ice so that it is floating. let it melt…..did the water rise? did it fall? hmmmmmmmm interesting
Electrolytes…..its what plants crave!!!!!!
This is complete bulls***. The CO2 content of our atmosphere is near record low of historic levels, and repeatable models show that we have hit saturation as far as CO2 as a green house gas goes. Higher quantities will have less and less influence on temperature. It’s the sun! How are you going to tax that? Grifters.
Bunch of groom and doomers, how many different locations they take tests?? Bunch of fear mongering dope heads
Just wait till 2026 when the solar maximum is over and we go into the decline again. We will be right back to “Record antarctic Ice Growth”, “Somehow the sea surface ice has returned”
Makes me wish ice grew uphill, We could watch the glaciers rebuild themselves. Oh but the Deniers, they dont know anything …….i forgot….Electrolytes, Its what plants crave!
If it’s 14 degrees Celsius, it won’t be 25 degrees Fahrenheit. So what is the point.
Once more, somebody forgot how complex the Earth’s intertwined systems are. “All things remaining the same…” But it won’t. This planet is too complex to predict Everything.
Sizzlenasty by name Clearly not taking the medication.The drivel dribbling from his/her mouth is truly tragic
Sizzlenasty THE NAME SAYS IT ALL REALLY
People get tired off responding to the same lies and distortions over and over and over again. Denier trolls either can’t grasp or don’t care about actual science. They think it’s a matter of “opinion,” or something that some anecdotal observation can refute. As Neil dGT likes to say: “Science works whether you believe in it or not.”
It sounds like you are talking about yourself. Mostly what I have seen from you are unsupported claims that are little more than opinion. Does it make you feel superior when you say something like “Denier trolls either can’t grasp or don’t care about actual science.” You are apparently unaware that the Nobel laureate, John Clauser, disagrees with you. Are you going to claim that a Nobel laureate doesn’t grasp the physics? You are apparently deluding yourself, making illogical claims.
You mean the John Clauser who who did all his physics work in a field totally unrelated to climate science and has no qualification to speak on the issue?
Just because you’re a top tier barber doesn’t mean you know how to fix plumbing. There are disciplines in physics for a reason.
Jimmey Jonga: My claim was essentially that a Nobel Laureate PhD in quantum physics should have little difficulty understanding the intricacies of the claim that IR photon absorption by CO2 was responsible for warming of the atmosphere. He certainly has the intellect and analytical tools to explore the issue. Otherwise, why even give a Nobel award? What you are fundamentally saying is that there is no such thing as a polymath, and Nobel Laureates are incapable of tackling problems other than what their academic specialty was. I seriously doubt that is the case! There would be no point in getting an advanced degree if all PhD’s were ‘one-note Johnnies’ who couldn’t work outside their dissertation area because nobody would hire them if they had already exhausted their repertoire. I would submit that a physicist with expertise in quantum mechanics is exactly what is needed to understand the problems of absorption and emission of quanta of energy.
On the other hand, we have the likes of Michael Mann [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann ], whom you probably consider to be a climatologist because he has an academic appointment in the field of climatology. However, his PhD is in the field of geology and geophysics. I get the impression that this “top tier barber” couldn’t cut it in the field where most of his academic training was, which was for finding oil and minerals with geophysical exploration techniques. Yet, you don’t criticize him as being unqualified to “speak on the issue.”
I don’t usually worry much about the academic qualifications of a researcher (unless their degree is in the history or philosophy of science) as long as they have an advanced degree in a classical science where they have learned to think and do research. However, inasmuch as you made an issue of Clauser’s qualifications, I thought it appropriate to point out your hypocrisy.
sO where is the science??? Where is the data?? Wheres the unaltered data??? Your making all these claims towards science… Yet im not seeing any, im seeing repeated ;arroting of a stretched narrative that is littered with controversy , climategate , and dishonesty……. What lies have these deniers told? wheres the science proving the theories of the deniers incorrect? wheres the rebuttal? Instead of scientific conclusion or even response we see name calling, projection. and ideological idiocracy unfolding right before us.
It’s a very funny article; no mention at all that recent research reveals that forests have more than doubled their growth rate.
How about addressing some specific points and refuting them with citations instead of just insulting him?
Earth has gone through changes before. We as a planet, move through space as does our galaxy. These are major contributors to the climate change discussion.
Clearly, there is a lot of uncertainty in this field, and lots of assumptions being made. The tragedy is that political policy is being made using this “science”, and geo-engineering projects are being proposed to alter the Earth’s environment to mitigate the problems theorized by these scientists who do this guesswork. They say humans are the cause of the environmental problems we allegedly face, but insist humans are the solution, too. Part of the problem is that the goal of science is to monkey with nature and change it. We can’t just study things and leave them alone. Human arrogance has us playing god with everything. But we aren’t god. We are just silly, ignorant, irrational, curious, and arrogant creatures, willing to act on our poorly-understood narrative of how everything works.
Okay, I’m NOT a scientist by any stretch but reading this makes me wonder if the article isn’t using the wrong number:
“Our reconstructed pCO2 values across the past 15 million years suggest Earth system sensitivity averages 13.9 °C per doubling of pCO2 and equilibrium climate sensitivity averages 7.2 °C per doubling of pCO2.”
So what’s the difference between the ‘Earth system sensitivity’ and the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity?’ Don’t get me wrong, it’s bad either way: 7.2 °C per doubling of pCO2 is still definitely game over. But it sounds like this is just confirming what the so-called ‘hot models’ have already predicted, putting the climate sensitivity at around 5°C.
And again, not trying to minimize this at all. A rise of 5-7°C will be devastating for all life on Earth.
Predictions were “wrong” in the early days of climate modelling, but that was back when records and watches were analog, and you had to get up to change channels on your TV. Since then, models have been inaccurate, and scientists freely admit this, but they haven’t been WRONG. And they have gotten more and more accurate in recent years, as we’ve obtained more and more data and have the computing power to run more and more sophisticated models.
It is inescapable that the Earth had been warming for decades, that human activity is primarily responsible for this, that serious negative impacts are here already, and that even more negative impacts are inevitable. The EXACT path of climate change is still beyond our science, but it’s like you’ve driven a car off a cliff. Youe don’t know EXACTLY how screwed you are, but the fact that you’re screwed is undeniable.
“It is inescapable that the Earth had been warming for decades, …”
More than decades. For at least 11,700 years, the official end of the last major Pleistocene glaciation. Strictly speaking, because the glaciation peaked more than 20,000 years ago, it has been warming since the maximum advance of the Northern Hemisphere continental glaciation.
“…, that human activity is primarily responsible for this, …”
That is an opinion that you share with many. However, it is not incontrovertible! You present it as fact without any citation or logical support. Just your usual dogmatic claims. The best evidence against your claim are the Law Dome (Antarctica) ice cores that show temperatures changing before the CO2 concentration changed. On a shorter time scale, during the COVID shutdowns of 2020, the anthropogenic emissions declined an average of about 10% for the year, with the month of April alone showing a decline of 14-18%. That was during the seasonal ramp-up phase. The plotted monthly data of the ramp-up phase is indistinguishable from the preceding and following years in slope and peak. However, El Nino years show easily recognizable increases in the slope and peak of the ramp-up phase, suggesting that the warmth causes an increase in biogenic CO2. Thus, supporting the conclusions of the Law Dome ice cores.
You can support virtually any hypothesis if you only look at data that confirms your belief.
” And they have gotten more and more accurate in recent years, …”
No, that is wrong. Even the modelers acknowledge that the models (except the Russian model) have been running warm for decades. The latest modeling iteration was even worse. You seem to be throwing out a lot of wishful thinking and claiming it to be fact. Reality doesn’t work that way.
“Science works whether you believe in it or not.”
I was glad to see your post. I’m not any kind of scientist but you cannot deny the fact of changes taking place on our planet. The planet will go on with or without the current occupants, rotating, wobbling on her axis, orbiting our star, which is itself in orbit around our galaxy, and of course our galaxy is also moving through space, as it has for quite awhile now and will continue to do so for who knows how long. Space itself apparently has no positive boundary, simply expanding. It is unlikely that humans will ever leave Earth, as the conditions for human existence does not exist, at least in our Solar System. It really won’t make any difference to the Universe. Our star has a finite life and will eventually end its current phase and go on to its, next configuration regardless.
Haven’t we heard all this before. Time after time they make predictions and time after time they’re wrong. Yet each time they made these predictions it results paying more taxes. My city was supposed to be under water 20years ago. Guess what, it’s still here with no noticeable change in sea level. Last year they tried blaming forest fires in climate change yet the locals in Greece confirmed they had arrested numerous people for starting them. Don’t believe the news, the news isnt there to inform you, it’s there to push their agenda in you. Media is pushing misinformation but because they do it for the right people it’s ok.
We desperately need a solution, but Green H2 is not it. It’s easily 50% less efficient than just using the electricity itself, and we need every Green Watt we can to drive coal and natural gas off the grid. Green H2 and DAC are dangerous distractions from much more effective solutions.
The only solution is to go to full scale green hydrogen technologies immediately. There is no other choice. Green hydrogen can replace all fossil fuels, and if needed, creating synthetic hydrocarbon fuels recycling the existing co2. The long term cost will be insignificant because the green hydrogen is infinitely available.
We cannot just swap from our basic used technology to the ‘new’ technology. Look at EV’s, they have been around for more than 10 years and yet in the UK out of the 33 million cars registered on our roads only 3% are under EV/bev/hybrid group. In 6 years all new ICE car sales are supposed to stop. We do not have the manufacturing capacity to go 100% EV let alone the raw materials and how is the government going to make them affordable to the low paid,let alone have the infrastructure of charging let alone the electricity generating capacity to fill that demand. Remembering that in the winter we get less electricity for wind and solar due to the angle and hours of sunlight as well as lower winds.
Even with SMT small modular reactors in the mix, these are not going to be online in enough quantity to replace the loss from wind and solar.
If you’re OK with going from 8 billion people to a few million cavemen in a couple of generations, yeah, we’re fine.
It’s a very funny article; no mention at all that recent research reveals that forests have more than doubled their growth rate.
it all really a fact that mother earth will fix it self even if means for her to start over with are species. look back in time and when don’t know what happen to other cizerlations and the tech. they had and if it wiped them out. if they they had no problem building stuff out of stone they had tech. and looks like mother nature go rid of them. my nature will do the same with use if we keep hurting her.
Comsidering that CO² is only increasing at 0.00000375% per year, what is the worry?
How about a citation for that number? Did you pull that out of a hat with random numbers written on slips of paper? Are you purposely trying to make skeptics look incompetent? I get about 0.6%/yr based on an increase of about 2.5 PPM with a base concentration of about 420 PPM.
The sunlight hitting Earth every day is 44,000 TW, which is 385,000,000 TWh per year. Mankind’s total primary energy consumption is about 176,000 TWh per year, which is less than 0.5% of that sunlight. This is why blocking just a LITTLE more energy from radiating into Space makes the Earth grow noticeably hotter. It’s just a few hundred ppm, but the math is perfectly clear.
“… the ocean floor at that spot has had oxygen-free conditions for many millions of years, …”
Meaning that it is a stagnant dead-zone, probably enriched in hydrogen sulfide, not experience mixing with cooler water above, and therefore showing temperatures that were not representative of the surface. It sounds to me like a poor choice for a single sample.
Any time a new and novel approach is used to measure something by proxy, ESPECIALLY when it disagrees with other results, it behooves the researcher(s) to verify that the method is working as hoped. When one gets a data point that is an outlier, the first thing the researcher should do is say, “Now, that’s interesting! I wonder why it is so different?” That means they need to explore their unexamined assumptions and look for mistakes they may have made. More importantly, they should look for ways to validate their results so that they can be assured that they weren’t measuring biogenic heating akin to what happens in a compost pile, or that the lack of mixing didn’t allow the geothermal gradient to heat the stagnant pool. I’m surprised the peer reviewers didn’t object to publication based on incomplete investigation.
You haven’t read the article very thoroughly. It’s not the temperature AT THAT POINT that’s being measured. It’s the temperature we can infer from sediment that settled there FROM THE SURFACE. The conditions at the bottom are only important because they were ideal for preserving the sediment that accumulated there.
If you read the entire article in Nature Communications (and could understand it), you’d see the answers to your questions.
“The conditions at the bottom are only important because they were ideal for preserving the sediment that accumulated there.”
That is the unexamined assumption. They didn’t make a case for the lack of oxygen being more important to preservation than the potential alteration of the organics because of elevated temperature, lowered pH, and probable presence of hydrogen sulfide having unknown effects on the organics in the depositional zone.
I will admit to not dwelling on the details of the article, which I did read. Your personal insults are rather juvenile. Are you trying to provoke me, or is it you just don’t have anything else substantive to offer?
I don’t see any personal insults in the comment above. On the contrary it is Clyde Spenser who has more than once called different posters juvenile.
“If you read the entire article in Nature Communications (and could understand it), …”
You don’t consider that an insult? It should be obvious that I grasp what is being discussed.
Please cite another example of me referring to insults as being “juvenile” — or apologize.
Humanity is doomed by the sizzlenastys out there. Not bc we can’t combat climate change, but bc there are so many sizzlenastys and dels. Their comments are so insane they would be comedic if they weren’t so tragic.
Reminds me of Thailand just before e tsunami came in; the receding waters
exposed what had been under the water; people ran onto the beach to pick up clams and what not that that was exposed by the receding water, only to be washed away minutes later; that would be those human animals of Western Civilization who would have the entirety of the world as their own personal property and all the freaks of nature who aid and abet them. Whatever becomes of humanity, a non livible planet would be their just deserts.
Our planet is so very small in comparison to The Sun. Of course our weather is messed up. The Sun is spewing plasma all over our continuously. Therefore our atmosphere is being damaged. Be realistic. Yes we humans could clean up our messes. But we are so small our impact on Earth can be wiped out if Earth decides to shake us off of her back. We are arrogant to believe we tiny ants can do anything to control Earth or the Sun. Big headed.
We ARE doing something to control the Earth. That’s the problem. It is OUR activity that is causing the Earth to warm. We’re not cavemen anymore. What we do matters on a global scale.
More of your proselytizing. When are you going to provide some actual NDGT science?
Only narcissists like yourself force people to do what they want them to do, it’s up to every single individual on earth to decide whether they think climate change is real, a treat or something good in long-term.
I love all the conditional words like it could and it may cause this. Doesn’t sound too much like they are sure of their findings. Most of these types of articles are written like this because these people don’t know for sure about anything and their predictions have not come true over the years. Do they do this to be able to write this article or is it all not true but they want you to fear global warming, wait no it’s climate change. That right there shows they know nothing.
Bulls*** it’s a money grab,more taxation and legislation and more regulations to scam the taxpayers, if this were true why do most of the politicians including Obama, bill gates,Jeff bezos, all have beach front properties, al gore has the biggest house on Tennessee and it cost 29k to power with natural gas and utilities, he owns 4 private jets as well as all these elites..dont fall for it..remember that scientists can be bought just as easy as celebrities and politicians, remember theu said follow the science in 2020 now they wanna convince you that there is more then 2 genders..
Scientists know nothing about the planet, and her name is Bugal Wena All-Mother Earth, not Gaia. The temperature of the planet is too hot now for the natural development of all life, including humans. Why don’t Scientists talk to me about their misconstrued theories. I am Reincarnated All-Mother Earth-God the Mother
lol! Attempt at scary bedtime story is not scary.
By when? Isn’t this a significant question the article does not answer? (as far as I could read)
The key words are “could” and “they don’t know”. The rest is just scaremongering tosh.
This “study” is confounded by incompetence and dogmatism!
the values of the two parameters: CO2 levels and temperatures can be taken into account, even if the conversion from chemical data is subject to uncertainty, because what counts is the comparison of variability.
What’s shocking is that these “researchers”, obsessed by the need to be “consensual”, never question the validity of their deduction of “climate sensitivity”.
They use a period of 15 million years, during which both parameters show a vaguely “affine” trend, and are proud to deduce a totally aberrant sensitivity, because if we were to apply it to our recent times, with a relative CO2 increase of 35%, we should have gained 8 to 10 degrees over 170 years, instead of … 1.3 °
What these “consensus” fanatics have overlooked is the fact that :
– CO2 has been falling steadily for almost 150 million years
– however, during the first 100 million years, temperatures continued to remain very high, confirming, if proof were needed, the grotesque “hogwash” that is climate sensitivity.
So it’s scientifically scandalous to take a fragment of observation as a basis for analysis, while ignoring or, what would be more serious deontologically, … masking the long periods when C2 > temperature variability is … of INVERSE effect, as shown by these fundamental studies! would like to have the opinion of a geological scientist on … other … obvious evidence of the realities of Nature
– plate tectonics ensured by isostatic pressure in faults and ridges
– the volcanic fringe in subduction zones, caused by the fusion sublimation of rocks from the plunging mantle and the contacting astenosphere during the … innumerable ruptures of subducting plates, incapable of withstanding the tensile forces of the “plunging” plate in the astenosphere beyond a few km, despite a relative weight reduced to 1/100.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
cette “étude” est confondante d’incompétence sur fond de dogmatisme !
les valeurs des deux paramètres : Taux CO2 et Températures peuvent etre prises en compte meme si la conversion depuis les données chimiques est sujette à incertitude, car e qui compte est la comparaison de variabilité.
Ce qui est choquant est que ces “chercheurs” , obnubilés par l’obligation d’etre “consensuels” ne se posent jamais la question de la validité de leur déduction de “sensibilité climatique”
Ils exploitent une période de 15 millions d’années ou les deux paramètres sont effectivement de tendance vaguement “affine” et sont fiers de déduire une sensibilité totalement aberrante car si on l’appliquait à notre époque récente avec une hausse relative de CO2 de 35%, nous devrions avoir gagné 8 à 10 degrés sur 170 ans au lieu de … 1.3 °
Ce que ces forcenés du “consensus” ont néglige est le fait que :
– la baisse du CO2 est constante depuis près de 150 millions d’année
– toutefois, pendant les 100 premieres millions, les températures ont continué à rester très élevées confirmant s’il le fallait la “foutaise” grotesque qu’est la prétendue sensibilité climatique
Ainsi il est scandaleux scientifiquement de prendre comme base d’analyse un fragment d’observation en ignorant ou, ce qui serait plus grave déontologiquement, … en masquant les larges périodes où la variabilité C2 > température est … d’effet INVERSE comme le montrent ces études fondamentales !
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2021.0836
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76
Thanks for this. My hope for humasanity has now been somewhat restored after that nonsense article. . Keep fighting the good fight and keep up the data my friend. Nobody mentions the massive amount of ALTERATION TO THE HISTORICAL DATA that GISS and NOAA have took upon themselves in an act not unlike a modern day book burning entirely. It should be considered Criminal. Dont just use the link below, but follow His references as well!!!
https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/#gsc.tab=0
wHAT A cROC !!! As always I read a few articles, and just as I start to think I may have found another site worth checking out. Along comes GARBAGE LIKE THIS and all hope for it goes out the damned window. And then i SEE WOPRDS LIKE CONSENSUS, AND RIDICULOUS percentages and yea……So short lived as it as, itys been a slice SciTech, But Ill go read something I can trust. So long
It’s a sad commentary on science education that in a study on the uptake of CO2 by oceans fails entirely to point out that while the oceans may be absorbing more CO2 than we might have previously thought, there is not a single mention of the fact that should this be the case, oceanic pH is thus more rapidly falling and with it the prospects for every marine organism that builds a carbonate shell or calcifies bone.