3,600°F. That was the mean global temperature from the earth's earliest days when it was colliding with planetesimals. Scientists estimate that the earth was 2,300 K (3,680°F) when it collided with the moon.

Even after collisions stopped, and the planet had tens of millions of years to cool, surface temperatures were more than 400°F.

-"But humans can't actually survive these temperatures? Why mention it?"

Because it debunks the climatological "Point of no Return". The earth was able to cool itself from a far higher temperature than humans could even imagine. The notion of the "Point of no Return" is anti-science, contradicts the history of the earth, and is only mentioned to create hysteria.

-What about the notion that humans have warmed the earth more than the earth has ever warmed itself? False. 600 myo-800 myo during the Neoproterozoic era the earth had sea ice down to the equator. Geologists reason that volcanic activity and a lack of rainfall brought the earth out of this ice age to average global temperatures of 90°F. (The average today is 60°F.)

According to Geologists, the earth was 100% responsible for the massive mean temperature spike. This evidence reaffirms the idea that natural global warming is far more devastating than human activity.

-"Ok. So the earth is a dick to itself and the point of no return is nonsense. But what is the warmest temperatures since after the dinosaurs?"

73°F. (Remember the mean temperature today is <60°F.) 73°F was the mean during the PETM or Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum which occurred 56 myo. During the PETM, the poles were free of ice and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the arctic circle. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the Mesozoic era —the age of dinosaurs- saw even higher mean temperatures.

I have researched climate change extensively which is why I remain a skeptic.
There are many questions that Climate Science can't yet answer.

If the polar ice caps are melting then why is Antarctic sea ice reaching a new record maximum? (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/antarctic_seaice_sept19_1.jpg) Why is only the northern polar ice cap melting?

We know the world was much warmer before mankind than it is projected to be. How did our ancestors thrive and what can we learn from them?

If the world was able to cool down from the Hadean period, late Neoproterozoic era, and PETM then isn't the climatologist "Point of no Return" a blatant lie?

If climatology is an exact science then what is the effect of 1 ton of CO2 or CH4 on global temperatures? 2 tons?

Why can't humans adapt to the conditions of a warmer world?

What percent of climate change is caused by humans?

If the #1 cause of global warming is livestock discharge then why do regulations target fossil fuel corporations? Isn’t this counterproductive?

Climate science cannot answer any of these questions, yet. The public looks to climatologists as the ultimate arbiter of public policy but they are not gods. The mean temperature has not been warming for 15 years. Cooling in the pacific, which was not predicted by any of the computer models, has balanced out the deterioration of the arctic sea ice.

The IPCC's latest report shows that in the next 100 years sea levels will only rise by 2 meters and the temperature will rise by 4-7 C and then go into a period of cooling. I have much more faith in humans near the water to slowly move away and for less people to wear sweaters than for humanity to destroy its entire economy and plunge the world into poverty. Until, of course, evidence is shown on the contrary.

My personal preference (or bias for the cynics out there) for energy is nuclear. The IPCC has even recommended that the world double its nuclear production by 2050. France supplies 39% of its electricity through nuclear energy.

If we were to stop discovering new oil, coal, and natural gas reservoirs and we stopped inventing new technology, like fracking, then we would run out of fossil fuels in 110 years. Fossil fuels are short term. As someone who has lived for 19 years less than 17 km from a nuclear power plant, I am confident that nuclear is the way of the future. The other half of the nearby nuclear power-plant has had its construction halted for years and is deteriorating. Unfortunately, funding for nuclear has been sidelined for pie-in-the-sky solar and wind power based on ridiculous public hysteria.

I firmly believe that as we run out of fossil fuels in the coming generations that the debate will become Nuclear vs. hysteria rather than fossil fuels vs. green energy. And if that is the case then I have every belief that nuclear will win the argument.

Edited 6/5/2017 18:43:57

tl;dr

quora.com

(also using F here triggered me, sorry for being a Cata)

Next time can you please use CELSIUS or KELVIN? And not Farenheit?
This is unreadable for anyone using sane units.

xD

Made my way down your "write up" and came along this:

Because it debunks the climatological "Point of no Return". The earth was able to cool itself from a far higher temperature than humans could even imagine. The notion of the "Point of no Return" is anti-science, contradicts the history of the earth, and is only mentioned to create hysteria.

The difference was that the heat came from inside the planet. The core. It naturally cools down. And will cool down more in the future. Mars for example is way colder than Earth, because it's core has cooled down. Some believe Mars is what Earth will look like in the future. Planets are hot when they are created and wil gradually lose energy.
However climate change is not about the core-temperature, but the surface temperature. Greenhouse-effect. Sun energy comes it, but less can escape due to CO² and various other stuff blocking it and "jailing" it in the atmosphere.
Also I never heard that ANYONE claims there is "Point of no return". Geniously curious where you got that from.

Because it debunks the climatological "Point of no Return".

Pretty sure there wasn't a climate back when the Earth was colliding with the moon...

>never heard anyone say point of no return

congratulations on not living in Murica

^
I really feel sorry for you

thank you slav.

@Cata

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-climate-change-policy-global-warming-expert-thomas-crowther-a7450236.html

http://nypost.com/2017/03/21/carbon-dioxide-levels-hit-point-of-no-return/

I am familiar with the greenhouse effect. However, it doesn't effect the whole world so the term "global warming" is misleading.

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-temperature-co2-emissions.html

As you can see, the term "Global warming" isn't accurate. Over the past 100 years the heat ended up in the northern arctic while the rest of the world remained the same and some parts cooler.

"Global warming" hasn't and won't cause droughts, famines, floods, and severe weather because it isn't a global phenomenon. It is an arctic one. The idea that all countries have an equal stake in climate change is laughable. At most the IPCC estimates sea levels will rise 2 meters in the next 100 years which certainly won't be a problem. I will also repeat that the Antarctic sea ice is at its largest ever and it will continue to grow, offsetting the rising sea levels caused by the melting northern sea.

Edited 6/6/2017 00:25:17

Those scientists give no proof why there is "no return". Nothing to debate about here. As Karl pointed out that bullshit is only taught in the US. Feel the bias! Everything is reverseable.

Also the article, you linked, CLEARLY shows that all parts of the world warmed up. It's globally. And you can't deny that local climate changes don't affect other parts on the planet. On earth there is no closed system. Everyting affects everything. Example is the Gulf Stream being weakened by the warming up, which causes Europe to cool a bit.

"...which causes Europe to cool a bit."

Then you admit that the whole world isn't warming?

whether people like it or not nuclear power is the future

Then you admit that the whole world isn't warming?

You passed my Bias-test. You ditched your own given source to take an argument of me that supports your opinion, just to strenghten your argument.
Congratulations!

You just got caught in a contradiction and blame my bias to nuclear energy. Bill Clinton would be proud.

Edited 6/6/2017 02:29:32

I am gonna explain it to you.
First, you refuted yourself by linking a source that counters your argument "[...] isn't a global phenomenon."
Second, I ... Actually there is no second :D

3,600°F. That was the mean global temperature from the earth's earliest days when it was colliding with planetesimals. Scientists estimate that the earth was 2,300 K (3,680°F) when it collided with the moon.

Even after collisions stopped, and the planet had tens of millions of years to cool, surface temperatures were more than 400°F.

-"But humans can't actually survive these temperatures? Why mention it?"

Because it debunks the climatological "Point of no Return". [..]
600 myo-800 myo during the Neoproterozoic era the earth had sea ice down to the equator. Geologists reason that volcanic activity and a lack of rainfall brought the earth out of this ice age to average global temperatures of 90°F. (The average today is 60°F.)

you somehow missed to include the atmosphere in your explanations. First of all the moon didnt collide with the earth. and in the hadean over 4 billion years ago was presumably almost no atmosphere and very few continental crust as well. the entire excess thermal energy was released into space.

In the Neoproterozoic the entire landmass was combined to one supercontinent Rodinia. and obviously at this time there was a lot of desertification on the continents due to the overall far distance towards the oceans. which means the climate change happened because of the geomorphology. after the decomposition of rodinia the continents naturally cooled down.

[EDIT:] desertification at that point is nonsense as Flora and Fauna on the continents havent been evolved at this time. which happened right after the proterozoic in the paleozoic. which is another reason for high temperatures and or climate change in that era. [/]

you cant compare those events with the current situation. there are zero parallels to recent times!

I have researched climate change extensively which is why I remain a skeptic. There are many questions that Climate Science can't yet answer.

which papers did you read?

If the polar ice caps are melting then why is Antarctic sea ice reaching a new record maximum? Why is only the northern polar ice cap melting?

Well there is an answer. global warming condenses more water. Especially in the Antarctic, which is surrounded by water and isolated with rather cool temperatures due to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the global warming effected an increase of precipitation in the form of snow. which is why the Antarctic is growing recently.
But as you can see by the El Nino effect the cooling Antarctic Circumpolar Current is losing successively its weighting in global measuring.

We know the world was much warmer before mankind than it is projected to be. How did our ancestors thrive and what can we learn from them?

which ancestors do you mean?

isn't the climatologist "Point of no Return" a blatant lie?

maybe, I dont know what exactly is meant by "point of no return". it rather sounds stupid to be honest. and in geological measurements it is utter nonsense, but who can wait thousands and millions of years for change?

If climatology is an exact science then what is the effect of 1 ton of CO2 or CH4 on global temperatures? 2 tons?

first of all climatology is an exact science with too many factors to make proper predictions. and second what do you mean with this weird equation?

Why can't humans adapt to the conditions of a warmer world?

They can and they will, but that is not the point. the point is a reasonable energy management.

If the #1 cause of global warming is livestock discharge then why do regulations target fossil fuel corporations? Isn’t this counterproductive?

do you have a source? there are many facts for global warming like CO2, CH4 emissions and others (still H2O has by far the biggest influence on the green house effect), deforestation, soil sealing, the exponentially growing human overpopulation and of course war, wars causes insane amounts of pollution.

The mean temperature has not been warming for 15 years.

which is no time! and doesnt proof anything.

The IPCC's latest report shows that in the next 100 years sea levels will only rise by 2 meters and the temperature will rise by 4-7 C

which is a lot!!

My personal preference (or bias for the cynics out there) for energy is nuclear. The IPCC has even recommended that the world double its nuclear production by 2050. France supplies 39% of its electricity through nuclear energy.

Uranium and fossil fuels are limited resources. Uranium for example can cover the world's entire energy consumption for about 40 years.

If we were to stop discovering new oil, coal, and natural gas reservoirs and we stopped inventing new technology, like fracking, then we would run out of fossil fuels in 110 years.

that's a far too optimistic prognosis!

Fossil fuels are short term. As someone who has lived for 19 years less than 17 km from a nuclear power plant, I am confident that nuclear is the way of the future.

interesting, so you dont worry much about climate change and pollution, because you live next to a nuclear power plant? =D maybe radiation caused your opinion?^^ However, the limited nuclear power is whether an alternative to fossil fuels nor the future of all energy supply problems. Renewable energy is!

Edited 6/6/2017 23:00:12

However, the limited nuclear power is whether the an alternative to fossil fuels nor the the future of all energy supply problems. Renewable energy is!

How do you prevent power blackouts?

I'm pretty sure no serious scientist believes all life forms will die because of global warming, that'd be uterly stupid. However one big fear is about mass extinctions, have you ever heard of those? Well, fast changes in climate, like the one we're having now, provoke the death of millions of species because of their inaptitude to adapt to these fast environnemental changes.

Even humans, I doubt we'd be wiped out from earth, some smart people will figure out how to survive, but again, any plan in that sense won't really be for all seven billion of us.

It's important to avoid these catastrophic climate changes because of the consequences they have for the biosphere as a hole, but also for ourselves! Don't know you guys, but I'm not really cool with starving out because the hole foodchain just died...