New paper finds Arctic was up to 12.6°C warmer than today

[Foxfyre]

It would be great to have a crystal ball to see what the Earth would look like at warmer temperatures. Or colder ones for that matter. I live on the high desert in one of the nation's driest states. If the Earth got warmer, would we return to the great ground water and lush rain forests that New Mexico once enjoyed?

And natural disasters result in some interesting stuff. I recently tuned in on a documentary of Mt. Saint Helens revsited 32 years after the explosive eruption in 1980. The forests are coming back thick and healthy. The wildlife is returning as plentiful as before. And Spirit Lake is teeming with trout and other game fish and other aquatic life. Before the eruption it was half as big and twice as deep and was clear and beautiful and almost sterile having almost no aquatic life at all.

The Earth has done a fantastic job of creating and sustaining life everywhere, even in the most unhospitable environments. And because we humans have the capacity to choose HOW we will adapt to our circumstances, I suspect we will do just fine even if we have to adjust to a changing climate and Mother Earth will take care of the rest as she has always done.

 

[RollingThunder]

This paper just published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology represents a reconstruction of temperatures in the vicinity of Bylot Island in the Canadian arctic and finds that during the Pleistocene epoch, the average temperature in that part of the world during that time period was about 11.4 decrees C warmer than today's temperatures.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006232]ScienceDirect.com - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology - Annually resolved temperature reconstructions from a late Pliocene?early Pleistocene polar forest on Bylot Island, Canada

Millions of years ago ("late Pliocene?early Pleistocene" = about two and half million years ago) the Earth was hotter in places that are now colder. So what? This is not a surprise to the scientists. Only ignorant retards would imagine that this is somehow significant to the current abrupt warming trend the world has been experiencing for the last century or so.

 

[westwall]

Provide links to all these textbooks and encyclopedias then. Go ahead..I dare you, in fact I double dog dare you!

My daughter told me to say that!

A slight breach of etiquite there on your daughter's part....skipping past the double dare to the double dog dare. The only thing left is the triple dare you....and then, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare.

She's only six so hasn't heard of the triple dog dare....yet

 

[westwall]

This paper just published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology represents a reconstruction of temperatures in the vicinity of Bylot Island in the Canadian arctic and finds that during the Pleistocene epoch, the average temperature in that part of the world during that time period was about 11.4 decrees C warmer than today's temperatures.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006232]ScienceDirect.com - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology - Annually resolved temperature reconstructions from a late Pliocene?early Pleistocene polar forest on Bylot Island, Canada

Millions of years ago ("late Pliocene?early Pleistocene" = about two and half million years ago) the Earth was hotter in places that are now colder. So what? This is not a surprise to the scientists. Only ignorant retards would imagine that this is somehow significant to the current abrupt warming trend the world has been experiencing for the last century or so.

No, it's only ignorant retards who look at the last 30 years of history and claim it is the "new normal". Grow up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, since we have had capability to gauge the freeze and melt rate in the Arctic for only 33 years, how in the world can anybody say that the current conditions are unprecedented? Nobody could possible know that.

 

[SSDD]

Millions of years ago ("late Pliocene?early Pleistocene" = about two and half million years ago) the Earth was hotter in places that are now colder. So what? This is not a surprise to the scientists. Only ignorant retards would imagine that this is somehow significant to the current abrupt warming trend the world has been experiencing for the last century or so.

You cut and paste drones are so f'ing boring. You would be so much more interesting if you actually took the time to learn something....anything.


The Pliestocene epoch which is the topic of the OP on this thread ended a mere 11,700 years ago.

As with dubya, I would like to thank you for the name calling. You reveal your pitiful psychology even more blatantly than him. Name calling is a sad sort of psychological defense practiced by people who feel inferior to their advesaries. It is a form of magical attack by you on those whom you call names. Does it really make you feel better about yourself? One has to wonder if you have any idea at all why you even do it.

 

[SSDD]

She's only six so hasn't heard of the triple dog dare....yet

Give her time.....but warn her about those freezing flag poles.

 

[RollingThunder]

This paper just published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology...

//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006232]ScienceDirect.com - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology - Annually resolved temperature reconstructions from a late Pliocene?early Pleistocene polar forest on Bylot Island, Canada

Millions of years ago ("late Pliocene?early Pleistocene" = about two and half million years ago) the Earth was hotter in places that are now colder. So what? This is not a surprise to the scientists. Only ignorant retards would imagine that this is somehow significant to the current abrupt warming trend the world has been experiencing for the last century or so.

You cut and paste drones are so f'ing boring. You would be so much more interesting if you actually took the time to learn something....anything.

LOLOLOL....that's really, really funny coming from a completely ignorant retard like you.

The Pliestocene epoch which is the topic of the OP on this thread ended a mere 11,700 years ago.

You flaming moron, it was your OP. If you had the even the brain-power of a retarded chipmunk, you would have seen that the article you cited said "late Pliocene?early Pleistocene" which means 'at the boundary between the two periods' or 'about two and half million years ago'.

As with dubya, I would like to thank you for the name calling.

You're welcome. I would like to thank the managers of this forum for keeping the moderation unobtrusive and light. It is a real pleasure to finally be able to tell you clueless denier cult stooges and dupes just how extremely stupid and retarded you actually are. Because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you are also clueless about just how stupid, ignorant and clueless you actually are, so someone has to let you know. I know the truth hurts sometimes but you really are better off knowing that you're an incompetent imbecile because maybe if you are made aware of that fact, you will stop making such a pathetic public spectacle of yourself so often.

 

[SSDD]

You're welcome. I would like to thank the managers of this forum for keeping the moderation unobtrusive and light. It is a real pleasure to finally be able to tell you clueless denier cult stooges and dupes just how extremely stupid and retarded you actually are. Because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you are also clueless about just how stupid, ignorant and clueless you actually are, so someone has to let you know. I know the truth hurts sometimes but you really are better off knowing that you're an incompetent imbecile because maybe if you are made aware of that fact, you will stop making such a pathetic public spectacle of yourself so often.

I am afraid that you are the more likely victim of Dunning-Kruger as you are no more than a cut and paste drone. You are unable to actually discuss any of the drivel you bring here and as such, are not very likely to understand it....yet you still believe yourself to be one of the smartest guys in the room. Typical Dunning-Kruger behavior. Have you never noticed that you are completely unable to discuss the topic in your own words?

 

[RollingThunder]

You're welcome. I would like to thank the managers of this forum for keeping the moderation unobtrusive and light. It is a real pleasure to finally be able to tell you clueless denier cult stooges and dupes just how extremely stupid and retarded you actually are. Because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you are also clueless about just how stupid, ignorant and clueless you actually are, so someone has to let you know. I know the truth hurts sometimes but you really are better off knowing that you're an incompetent imbecile because maybe if you are made aware of that fact, you will stop making such a pathetic public spectacle of yourself so often.

I am afraid that you are the more likely victim of Dunning-Kruger as you are no more than a cut and paste drone. You are unable to actually discuss any of the drivel you bring here and as such, are very likely to understand it....yet you still believe yourself to be one of the smartest guys in the room. Typical Dunning-Kruger behavior. Have you never noticed that you are completely unable to discuss the topic in your own words?

No, little moron, I had not noticed that because, not only do I understand the science behind the scientific conclusions on the reality of AGW, I also do discuss AGW in my own words quite frequently in these debates. By citing and quoting climate scientists, I am also using something called 'evidence' in these debates, a concept you seem entirely unfamiliar with.

Have you ever noticed that you are completely unable to discuss these issues rationally, using actual evidence from reputable sources? Have you ever noticed that you believe in massive and impossible conspiracy theories involving tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different countries? Have you noticed that you mistakenly consider unreferenced denier cult blog entries to be factual and cite them here as good 'sources'? Have you ever pulled your head out of your butt long enough to notice that your braindead drivel, lies and misinformation gets debunked by the facts every time? Too bad you're too retarded to notice those things because everybody else with more than two brain cells to rub together definitely notices all that.

 

[SSDD]

No, little moron, I had not noticed that because, not only do I understand the science behind the scientific conclusions on the reality of AGW, I also do discuss AGW in my own words quite frequently in these debates.

Alas, you do not. Why tell such an obvious lie? What you do in your own words is call names in a psychological defense agains those who make you feel inadequate and you really aren't very good at that either.

 

[Old Rocks]

It would be great to have a crystal ball to see what the Earth would look like at warmer temperatures. Or colder ones for that matter. I live on the high desert in one of the nation's driest states. If the Earth got warmer, would we return to the great ground water and lush rain forests that New Mexico once enjoyed?

And natural disasters result in some interesting stuff. I recently tuned in on a documentary of Mt. Saint Helens revsited 32 years after the explosive eruption in 1980. The forests are coming back thick and healthy. The wildlife is returning as plentiful as before. And Spirit Lake is teeming with trout and other game fish and other aquatic life. Before the eruption it was half as big and twice as deep and was clear and beautiful and almost sterile having almost no aquatic life at all.

The Earth has done a fantastic job of creating and sustaining life everywhere, even in the most unhospitable environments. And because we humans have the capacity to choose HOW we will adapt to our circumstances, I suspect we will do just fine even if we have to adjust to a changing climate and Mother Earth will take care of the rest as she has always done.

First, by current trends, and all the models, New Mexico will get hotter and drier.

Second, ask any old dinosaur about how sustaining of life the Earth is. Or the multitude of critters that became extinct at the P-T Extinction Event.

 

[westwall]

It would be great to have a crystal ball to see what the Earth would look like at warmer temperatures. Or colder ones for that matter. I live on the high desert in one of the nation's driest states. If the Earth got warmer, would we return to the great ground water and lush rain forests that New Mexico once enjoyed?

And natural disasters result in some interesting stuff. I recently tuned in on a documentary of Mt. Saint Helens revsited 32 years after the explosive eruption in 1980. The forests are coming back thick and healthy. The wildlife is returning as plentiful as before. And Spirit Lake is teeming with trout and other game fish and other aquatic life. Before the eruption it was half as big and twice as deep and was clear and beautiful and almost sterile having almost no aquatic life at all.

The Earth has done a fantastic job of creating and sustaining life everywhere, even in the most unhospitable environments. And because we humans have the capacity to choose HOW we will adapt to our circumstances, I suspect we will do just fine even if we have to adjust to a changing climate and Mother Earth will take care of the rest as she has always done.

First, by current trends, and all the models, New Mexico will get hotter and drier.

Second, ask any old dinosaur about how sustaining of life the Earth is. Or the multitude of critters that became extinct at the P-T Extinction Event.

Yep, the dinosaurs only existed for a paltry 200 million years in their original form, then they evolved into birds who have only managed a pathetic 65 million year run, and are amazingly enough, still with us. They wouldn't know anything about survival on this planet.


What an astoundingly ignorant, stupid comment.

 

[Foxfyre]

It would be great to have a crystal ball to see what the Earth would look like at warmer temperatures. Or colder ones for that matter. I live on the high desert in one of the nation's driest states. If the Earth got warmer, would we return to the great ground water and lush rain forests that New Mexico once enjoyed?

And natural disasters result in some interesting stuff. I recently tuned in on a documentary of Mt. Saint Helens revsited 32 years after the explosive eruption in 1980. The forests are coming back thick and healthy. The wildlife is returning as plentiful as before. And Spirit Lake is teeming with trout and other game fish and other aquatic life. Before the eruption it was half as big and twice as deep and was clear and beautiful and almost sterile having almost no aquatic life at all.

The Earth has done a fantastic job of creating and sustaining life everywhere, even in the most unhospitable environments. And because we humans have the capacity to choose HOW we will adapt to our circumstances, I suspect we will do just fine even if we have to adjust to a changing climate and Mother Earth will take care of the rest as she has always done.

First, by current trends, and all the models, New Mexico will get hotter and drier.

Second, ask any old dinosaur about how sustaining of life the Earth is. Or the multitude of critters that became extinct at the P-T Extinction Event.

Well I don't have a lot of faith in the models because they keep missing the mark. Do they admit that? No, they just keep rewriting them and keep using them to sell whatever social or political agenda is currently in fashion. New Mexico hasn't been getting hotter--we are setting a lot more cold records than hot ones each year lately. But we are in a prolonged drought so that may be our new "normal" on the scale of the drought that anthropologists believe drove the Anazazi from their ancient homes in southwest Colorado, northeast Arizona, and northern New Mexico.

But on the grand scale of things there is no reason to believe that a land that was once rain forest and gradually, over eons, became desert, would not cycle, over eons, into rain forest once again.

But nobody knows for sure what to expect over the long term. A giant meteor hitting us could trigger another 'nuclear' winter wiping out whole species and generating a major climate shift. Or we could be in an exremely stable period in which little or no adjustment needs to be made.

But one thing is for certain. Thirty years of satellite images is not enough to tell us much about long term trends.

 

[SSDD]

First, by current trends, and all the models, New Mexico will get hotter and drier.

Second, ask any old dinosaur about how sustaining of life the Earth is. Or the multitude of critters that became extinct at the P-T Extinction Event.

More evidence of the failure of computer models. During the Pliestocene epoch, New Mexico and the surrounding desert states were green. Your modellers would know this if they actually took the time to look at the fossl record rather than continue operating on the terribly flawed physics they are using at present.

 

[bripat9643]

It would be great to have a crystal ball to see what the Earth would look like at warmer temperatures. Or colder ones for that matter. I live on the high desert in one of the nation's driest states. If the Earth got warmer, would we return to the great ground water and lush rain forests that New Mexico once enjoyed?

And natural disasters result in some interesting stuff. I recently tuned in on a documentary of Mt. Saint Helens revsited 32 years after the explosive eruption in 1980. The forests are coming back thick and healthy. The wildlife is returning as plentiful as before. And Spirit Lake is teeming with trout and other game fish and other aquatic life. Before the eruption it was half as big and twice as deep and was clear and beautiful and almost sterile having almost no aquatic life at all.

The Earth has done a fantastic job of creating and sustaining life everywhere, even in the most unhospitable environments. And because we humans have the capacity to choose HOW we will adapt to our circumstances, I suspect we will do just fine even if we have to adjust to a changing climate and Mother Earth will take care of the rest as she has always done.

First, by current trends, and all the models, New Mexico will get hotter and drier.

Second, ask any old dinosaur about how sustaining of life the Earth is. Or the multitude of critters that became extinct at the P-T Extinction Event.

An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, moron.

 

[Foxfyre]

It would be great to have a crystal ball to see what the Earth would look like at warmer temperatures. Or colder ones for that matter. I live on the high desert in one of the nation's driest states. If the Earth got warmer, would we return to the great ground water and lush rain forests that New Mexico once enjoyed?

And natural disasters result in some interesting stuff. I recently tuned in on a documentary of Mt. Saint Helens revsited 32 years after the explosive eruption in 1980. The forests are coming back thick and healthy. The wildlife is returning as plentiful as before. And Spirit Lake is teeming with trout and other game fish and other aquatic life. Before the eruption it was half as big and twice as deep and was clear and beautiful and almost sterile having almost no aquatic life at all.

The Earth has done a fantastic job of creating and sustaining life everywhere, even in the most unhospitable environments. And because we humans have the capacity to choose HOW we will adapt to our circumstances, I suspect we will do just fine even if we have to adjust to a changing climate and Mother Earth will take care of the rest as she has always done.

First, by current trends, and all the models, New Mexico will get hotter and drier.

Second, ask any old dinosaur about how sustaining of life the Earth is. Or the multitude of critters that became extinct at the P-T Extinction Event.

An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, moron.

Well. . . . . that is one of many theories out there. Another is that we were in a major climate shift and an ice age got them. The truth is, there is no scientific consensus on how or even when the dinosaurs left us.

Nevertheless, a visit to that debate should really give pause for thought to the pro-AGW crowd who are certain that science has it all figured out what and how the climate is changing now and operate under the conviction that we humans have full power to change it at will:

. . . .Mass Extinctions: But before we dive into the complex issue of the K-T extinction, we need essential background information to understand the basics of the controversy. The "great dying," as it is sometimes called, is an example of a mass extinction: an episode in evolutionary history where more than 50% of all known species living at that time went extinct in a short period of time (less than 2 million years or so).

Other Mass Extinctions? We know of several mass extinctions in the history of life; the great dying is not nearly the largest! The largest would be the "Permo-Triassic" extinction, between the Permian and Triassic periods, of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. In this obviously catastrophic event, life on Earth nearly was wiped out — an estimated 90% of all species living at that time were extinguished. We are fairly sure that the extinction was due to many changing global conditions at that time, but even that is not solved yet. The issue has not received much press because the dinosaurs were not involved, but another familiar group, the trilobites, were wiped out among others. . . .

. . . .Falsifiability: Sad but true: many hypotheses about dinosaur extinction sound quite convincing and might even be correct, but, as you know, are not really science if they cannot be proven or disproved. Even with the best hypothesis, such as the impact hypothesis, it is very difficult to prove or disprove whether the dinosaurs were rendered extinct by an event that occurred around the K-T boundary, or whether they were just weakened (or unaffected) by the event. This is not to say that all extinction hypotheses are not science; many are excellent examples of good science, but a linkage of direct causation is a problem. "Why" questions, such as "Why did the dinosaurs die out?" or "Why did dinosaurs evolve?" are among the most difficult questions in paleontology. Ultimately, a time machine would be required to see exactly what killed the dinosaurs.

Now that you have a background in the extinction issue, feel free to delve into the modern arena of scientific examination of the "Mystery of the Great Dying."
The Great Mystery: Background

 

[daveman]

It would be great to have a crystal ball to see what the Earth would look like at warmer temperatures. Or colder ones for that matter. I live on the high desert in one of the nation's driest states. If the Earth got warmer, would we return to the great ground water and lush rain forests that New Mexico once enjoyed?

And natural disasters result in some interesting stuff. I recently tuned in on a documentary of Mt. Saint Helens revsited 32 years after the explosive eruption in 1980. The forests are coming back thick and healthy. The wildlife is returning as plentiful as before. And Spirit Lake is teeming with trout and other game fish and other aquatic life. Before the eruption it was half as big and twice as deep and was clear and beautiful and almost sterile having almost no aquatic life at all.

The Earth has done a fantastic job of creating and sustaining life everywhere, even in the most unhospitable environments. And because we humans have the capacity to choose HOW we will adapt to our circumstances, I suspect we will do just fine even if we have to adjust to a changing climate and Mother Earth will take care of the rest as she has always done.

First, by current trends, and all the models, New Mexico will get hotter and drier.

Second, ask any old dinosaur about how sustaining of life the Earth is. Or the multitude of critters that became extinct at the P-T Extinction Event.

An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, moron.

An asteroid...MADE OF CARBON DIOXIDE!!!