Skip to content

Hothouse Earth

August 7, 2018

By Paul Homewood

Latest crap from the warmist establishment, gleefully blown up by the BBC



Climate change: ‘Hothouse Earth’ risks even if CO2 emissions slashed

It may sound like the title of a low budget sci-fi movie, but for planetary scientists, “Hothouse Earth” is a deadly serious concept.

Researchers believe we could soon cross a threshold leading to boiling hot temperatures and towering seas in the centuries to come.

Even if countries succeed in meeting their CO2 targets, we could still lurch on to this “irreversible pathway”.

Their study shows it could happen if global temperatures rise by 2C.

An international team of climate researchers, writing in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says the warming expected in the next few decades could turn some of the Earth’s natural forces – that currently protect us – into our enemies.

Each year the Earth’s forests, oceans and land soak up about 4.5 billion tonnes of carbon that would otherwise end up in our atmosphere adding to temperatures.

But as the world experiences warming, these carbon sinks could become sources of carbon and make the problems of climate change significantly worse.

So whether it is the permafrost in northern latitudes that now holds millions of tonnes of warming gases, or the Amazon rainforest, the fear is that the closer we get to 2 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels, the greater the chances that these natural allies will spew out more carbon than they currently now take in.

Back in 2015, governments of the world committed themselves to keeping temperature rises well below 2 degrees, and to strive to keep them under 1.5. According to the authors, the current plans to cut carbon may not be enough if their analysis is correct.

“What we are saying is that when we reach 2 degrees of warming, we may be at a point where we hand over the control mechanism to Planet Earth herself,” co-author Prof Johan Rockström, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, told BBC News.

“We are the ones in control right now, but once we go past 2 degrees, we see that the Earth system tips over from being a friend to a foe. We totally hand over our fate to an Earth system that starts rolling out of equilibrium.”


The utterly corrupt body of climate science has been getting ever more desperate to scare people about climate change and thereby submit to their radical anti capitalist agenda.

People are not falling for it, so we are now being subjected to ever more absurd announcements like this.


The whole premise of this latest is so wholly ridiculous that, if it had been in any other field of science it would have instantly dismissed as juvenile fantasy rambings with no evidence at all.

But, unfortunately, this is climate science, where any poorly qualified hack with a taste for easy grant money can publish whatever nonsense they want, in the knowledge that the corrupt pal review system will give it the nod, and that the complicit left wing media will give it top billing as indisputable truth


This is the latest puerile attempt to fool the public.


I am on holiday, but it took me about ten minutes to spot the gaping fallacies in their argument.


  1. The world has been much warmer than now, even in the recent past, yet we have never had this supposed runaway warming.


In particular, temperatures in the Arctic have been much higher throughout just about all of the holocene. We know from ice cores that temperatures in Greenland in the 19thC were the lowest since the ice age.

Yet these con artists expect us to believe that current temperatures are leading us into oblivion.

Using the same logic, the same plunge into the LIA should also have led to runaway cooling.


The simple fact is that the world has a remarkable stable climate, which reacts to natural climatic changes, but does not run out of control.


2) The Study relies heavily on warming in the Arctic, which supposedly will lead to ice loss, methane release etc, which will in turn cause further warming.

But we know that Arctic temperatures were much higher a few thousand years ago. We also know they were just as high in the 1930s and 40s.

There was no runaway warming then, and won’t be now.


3) The study also invokes the prospect of the Amazon rainforest dying off because of global warming, and the Sahel returning to desert. It is said that these events will add to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yet we know from historical evidence during the early holocene that a warmer world is a wetter, greener one. That is why the Sahara was verdant 5000 years ago.

Proper climate scientists, such as H Lamb knew a long while ago that cold global climates lead to droughts, not warm ones.


The public has shown itself remarkably resilient in its determination not to have its standard of living damaged by left wing climate policies. Hence the increasingly desperate attempts by the climate mafia to blame every hurricane, flood, heatwave and drought and wildfire on fossil fuels.

And when that does not work, why not try hell and damnation as well?


You would be entitled, reading the above warnings of apocalypse, to think that we are all doomed anyway. Yet, surprise, surprise, the authors offer us a get out of jail card free! Worldwide communism:

The authors say a total re-orientation of human values, equity, behaviour and technologies is required. We must all become stewards of the Earth.

Now, isn’t that a surprise?

  1. HotScot permalink
    August 7, 2018 10:34 pm

    Sharknado cometh.


  2. August 7, 2018 11:35 pm

    Do these catastrophe pornographers not realise how their naked self-interest comes shining through their murk?

  3. M E permalink
    August 7, 2018 11:37 pm

    “What we are saying is that when we reach 2 degrees of warming, we may be at a point where we hand over the control mechanism to Planet Earth herself,” co-author Prof Johan Rockström, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, told BBC News..”

    The planet’s atmosphere is a system which self corrects, surely
    There isn’t a control mechanism . There is no switch. We don’t hand over the rudder . These people watch too many TV cartoons. The mad scientist is a Hollywood invention
    as is personification of inanimate objects like planets.

    The Earth is not Mother , the Sky is not Father.

    The pagans of the Roman Empire and beyond believed that, and also they believed the influence of planets on human fortune. If we are going back to that we must start sacrificing again but remember a whole animal ,burning, causes a lot of smoke.

    • Sheri permalink
      August 12, 2018 2:05 pm

      This seems to be a sudden admission we are not omnipotent. And, yes, a return to the pagan believes that the earth is alive and there are gods in nature.

  4. August 7, 2018 11:58 pm

    Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
    When you receive finding from the EU, expect to be covered in c**p. The only reason this was the top story on the beeb since yesterday is due to desperation. As Joe B has capably shown its the Atlantic stupid and not trace gas.

  5. Broadlands permalink
    August 8, 2018 12:28 am

    “We are the ones in control right now, but once we go past 2 degrees, we see that the Earth system tips over from being a friend to a foe. We totally hand over our fate to an Earth system that starts rolling out of equilibrium.”
    “The authors say a total re-orientation of human values, equity, behaviour and technologies is required. We must all become stewards of the Earth.”

    Ok those of you in control…Prof Johan Rockström et al.? What do you recommend we do about it? Yet another scary scenario with not ONE piece of viable evidence that they could control the Earth’s climate if we handed them full control. These guys cannot even predict the last 20 years without hindcasting and “adjusting” their models along with the numbers they put in them. Deadly serious…but to make the data fit? To show us what might happen.BS.

  6. manicbeancounter permalink
    August 8, 2018 5:05 am

    The disconnect between ideological message and reality is easy to detect by taking a moment to think. Human CO2 emissions are supposed to be the cause of coming catastrophes. To avoid these catastrophes, all emissions in every country must be reduced. Yet the proponents are not telling the Governments of China, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, 50+ African countries or other emerging economies they must embrace the climate ideology. It is just in a few Western countries they are revered as serious scientists.

    • August 8, 2018 7:09 am

      According to Prof. David King yesterday, we have even got to find ways of sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere to reduce it back to pre-industrial levels. Presumably this will be while China, India et al, will be continuing to increase emissions. Guess what this will do to our relative economies.
      Presumably they will not be happy until we have been returned to a Dickensian economy in a Dickensian climate.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        August 8, 2018 7:21 am

        Why would any sane person want to “turn the climate back” to the LIA? Ergo Prof David King is insane.

  7. Immune to propaganda permalink
    August 8, 2018 5:45 am

    How do we defeat the eco – commies and silence their hysterical propaganda?

  8. steve kent permalink
    August 8, 2018 6:51 am

    We are all doomed, doomed, doomed…… hahahhhahahhhaah

  9. Bitter@twisted permalink
    August 8, 2018 7:20 am

    And guess what these “scientist’s” solution is?
    Global governance and universal socialism.
    Read the abstract of this puerile rubbish.

    • Rowland P permalink
      August 9, 2018 1:21 pm

      UN’s 2030 agenda on “sustainable development” comes to mind……

  10. August 8, 2018 8:09 am

    The Headline on the BBC News Channel (and virtually all of the MSM) of “Global Heatwave” yesterday, typifies their bias in this matter. It is nothing more than journalistic hyperbole.

    Because there are a lot of places having heatwaves does not mean the whole globe is having a heatwave.

    It ignores the fact that heat is coming from areas which are below normal as a result.
    The globe may be above “normal” overall, but most of the globe is probably within normal limits.

    No mention of the below “normal” arctic in July.

    I am sure that August will look similar.

    • Sheri permalink
      August 12, 2018 2:08 pm

      There is incredible hype about temperatures over 100F. I was in Arizona in 1994 and the temperature did not drop below 3 digits until mid-October (I was there 7 weeks) when I went back to Wyoming to hunt—in snow. It’s like these people live in a bubble and never touch reality, even by accident.

  11. August 8, 2018 8:17 am

    When a so-called study calls for ‘new governance arrangements, and transformed social values’ it’s obviously a political document.

  12. Athelstan permalink
    August 8, 2018 8:24 am

    “the authors say”

    I see that they’ve started to cut out the authors names and sources, I wonder why that could be – if you’re so reluctant to put your names to such utter tripe;

    A. I suppose it’s not really surprising


    B. you’ve lost the bleedin’ plot and the wider publics attention.

    Ref: the remoaniac campaign “Gloom, doom and Armageddon Pt II”, is going the same way as Pt I, straight to the trash bin of public opinion.

  13. Colin Brooks permalink
    August 8, 2018 8:32 am

    Today even Philip Johnston was given the whole leader article to write about the danger of ‘apocalyptic ‘ warming. Funny that – I thought he was a political pundit not a climate moron, oh well.


    • Colin Brooks permalink
      August 8, 2018 8:34 am

      Sorry – in today’s D.T.

    • Athelstan permalink
      August 8, 2018 11:15 am

      Hells teeth, yeah, I read that pitiful article and spilled my coffee in the process.

      Johnston very craftily, he used selective facts and risibly fell back on the cretins redoubt: of groupthink of alarmist mush to justify his bonkers piece.

      It was almost as if the Vichy tories had ordered him to pen it, although when struggling to reading it, with gritted teeth, through the pained tears. I thought to myself. alas; Kumi Naidoo or that gormless advocate of the green madness Claire wotsherface Perry (or think of any current or recent past cabinent MP)……..might have actually penned it and using Johnston’s byline.

      Johnston, even had the cheek to quote Margaret Thatcher’s sorr Crispin tickell’s execrable piece which Mrs. Thatcher uttered way back in 1988. Invidiously and how ever so conveniently, Johnston neglected to mention that. Writing in her latter years memoirs, Margaret Thatcher refuted the claims of man made CO2 causing warming and did very much regret helping to set that great green myth bandwagon to steamrollering western taxpayers.

      He, Johnston did deign to mention that, China and India are the biggest polluters but neglected to say the truth, that despite whatever Britain may do to deindustrialize and strap the nation via the madness of our very own CCA2008, it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to world CO2 emissions, notwithstanding the rather salient fact that – CO2 the great majority ±95% – of CO2 outgasing is done by mother Gaia herself, pray tell – how could we stop (mother nature doing just) that…………….?

      Johnston enthused layered on stupidity and heaped it on with murdering logic and the scientific method trashed (though he vaguely mentioned ‘most of’ the prognostications were “computer modelled”………..and in total ignorance of observation, world Ts are still in stasis.
      Johnston, he thus mangled and managed to formulate an item designed and demonstrating therein of half arsed scribble, the idle fuqwittery of the terminally stupid.

      I wouldn’t mind but he makes the egregious mistake of misunderstanding the phrase ‘green investment’ – Philip, there isn’t any such thing lad, all ‘green investment’ is einforced, imposed taxation by your beloved Vichy tories.

      What a prat.

  14. Dave Ward permalink
    August 8, 2018 9:27 am

    “Where any poorly qualified hack”

    Paul, you do realise that in a recent comment one of the believers referred to you as “Some guy with a website”. This may be true, however YOU have the distinct advantage of being able to use spreadsheets, unlike one of those “expert” scientists – Phil Jones – who famously had to admit asking for help with Excel, as was uncovered in the original UEA “Climategate” leaks…

    “I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here”

    Keep up the good work (even on holiday!).

  15. August 8, 2018 9:34 am

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    The usual climate larmists were bound to exploit the opportunity of summer heatwaves to push their agenda, but as climate sceptic Robert Walker points out here: ‘The article is mainly about things that could happen centuries to thousands of years into the future. … There are no dates in it, and there is no new fundamental research.’

  16. Up2snuff permalink
    August 8, 2018 9:34 am

    At least the Swedish scientist presenting the summary of the paper (which he helped write?) on BBC R4 used the word ‘may’ as a prefix to the prophecy of doom. He forgot that other important scientific word: We ‘think’ or we ‘assume’ that …

    Unfortunately, to any schoolchild, the obvious error of the sea level rise in hothouse temperatures will have stood out far more.

    Perhaps it might help if some of these European IPCC scientists spent some summers in Singapore or somewhere similar.

  17. Kestrel27 permalink
    August 8, 2018 9:56 am

    The BTL comments on the article are just as depressing as it is. They seem to be made mostly by people who don’t know:

    that the world has often been as warm or warmer than it is now,
    that the level of air pollution in the UK has steadily reduced for the last sixty years or so,
    that the risk of serious overpopulation is reducing because birth rates are declining everywhere except Africa.

    They have the good fortune to live in a more prosperous and comfortable world than humans have ever lived in before yet all they can see is future apocalyptic doom. And of course they know that the solution to this imaginary apocalypse, which they are entirely happy to impose on the rest of us, is a global government that controls everything we do. A nightmare vision indeed.

    • Colin Brooks permalink
      August 8, 2018 10:04 am


      apologies for being a bit slow.

      • Mack permalink
        August 8, 2018 11:07 am

        In this context I think it means ‘Below the Line’, i.e. doomster comments beneath or following the article. More aptly, it should also mean ‘Bollocks Talked at Length’. Let me know when Climate Armageddon is due and I’ll pop the date in my diary and see if I’m not busy that day. If I am I’ll just ignore it and carry on as usual. I’m sure another date for the End of the World will pop along shortly. Zzzzzzzz.

      • Kestrel27 permalink
        August 8, 2018 10:17 pm

        Yes, Mack is right. Sorry for the unnecessary abbreviation.

  18. Andy Standing permalink
    August 8, 2018 10:18 am

    how about this

  19. tom0mason permalink
    August 8, 2018 10:57 am

    CAGW advocates and the UN-IPCC do not want you looking at past times, do not want you to learn from documented history.
    A Hothouse World indeed!

    Of note is that in year 1666 when months of heatwave and drought that affected most of Europe.
    At that time in England, London had lain under an exceptional drought since November 1665, and the wooden buildings were tinder-dry after the long hot summer of 1666. After such an unusually hot and dry spring, temperatures in the summer of 1666 rose 1.5°C above normal (estimated), and a precipitation shortfall of 6 inches turned London’s mostly wooden dwellings into large tinderboxes awaiting a spark. The same conditions prevailed in much of northwestern Europe, giving rise to fires in scores of German cities. However the published diary writing of people like Samuel Pepys and others who survived the conflagration, such as the child Daniel Defoe (he would later write about the plagues and diseases of that time, and a first hand account of the ‘Great Storm’ of 1703), ensured the spectacular destruction of London were well documented, and it’s infamy was not overshadowed other urban fires elsewhere in the world during this time.

    London however was not the only capital city where unusual drought in the mid seventeenth century produced a ‘Great Fire’ —

    Moscow in 1648, after several months without rain, ‘within a few hours more than half the city inside the White Wall, and about half the city outside the wall, went up in flames’.

    Large part of the new Mughal capital Shahjahanabad, aka ‘Old Delhi’, burnt down in 1662.

    Istanbul suffered more, with numerically more devastating fires in the seventeenth century than in any other period of its history: one notable blaze was in 1660 (again after a prolonged drought) when it burned down 280,000 houses and several public buildings.

    Major blazes also regularly devastated Edo, the largest city in Japan, notably the Meireki fire of 1657 – which, like those in Moscow in 1648, Istanbul in 1660 and London in 1666, broke out after an abnormal droughts.

    [Source: and
    and ‘Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century.’ by Geoffrey Parker.]

    All these happened during the LIA.
    And yes by December 1666, London like much of Europe was in the grip of a very cold winter, with severe frosts and ice over many European rivers including much of London’s Thames.

    So what did the weather in any year tell us about the climate of the 17th century?

  20. Europeanonion permalink
    August 8, 2018 11:13 am

    I reflect on the fact that millions of tons (false figures, airy snatching of numbers from the ether) that have not been ejected into the atmosphere since the weather has been warmer. I reflect on the fact that people are walking about in all manner of summer gear, largely of an outdated appearance and not giving a fig. I see salad sales burgeoning and no lack of produce on the shelves. People are living an outdoor life and the efficacy of that shows quite clearly in their faces.

    This may be the way that nature does it and the way that we modify our environments to favour us. If this is the hottest that is on offer then in reaction we will be using less fossil fuel domestically. That suggests an element of equilibrium. The grass may be brown but you ought to see my pears, the best I have ever had.

    Since the start of this brilliant spell I have been overwhelmed by the spectacular skies and occasional cloud formations. Living a largely outdoor life, I have not succumbed to the start of the football season and have played my lute and read books in the depths of my garden instead. I have no desire to find a hot climate to assuage the effects of the usual British summer and am grateful I do not have to be in debt to the airlines, travels agents and the latest public service strike in France.

    Enjoy your holiday Paul and when you think of the anti capitalists afford yourself a smile.

    • Colin Brooks permalink
      August 8, 2018 12:38 pm

      Mr Onion (I can not bring myself to write ‘European’ at the moment ^.^)

      Your comment on ‘false figures’ should remind us all of some hugely important facts.

      It is impossible to measure or even define ‘global temperature’.
      It is impossible to measure global atmospheric CO2 levels.
      It is impossible to measure the amount of CO2 in the oceans.
      It is impossible to measure/calculate the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere (except to say it is good for plants).
      Models do not constitute evidence and only produce results based on the assumptions that go into them.
      I could go on but my glass needs refilling hehe

      • Up2snuff permalink
        August 8, 2018 8:09 pm

        Colin, good post. The problem is to measure something that varies every day as night turns to day and day turns to night and as one crop is harvested somewhere and another sown. As one holiday season starts with a flood of vehicles leaving for the coast and another fails dismally due to poor weather.

        So instead, ‘they’ create CO2 emissions building rockets & satellites, more emissions blasting the satellite into space, even more emissions building big computers to receive the data from space and yet even more emissions to generate electricity to run the data through the computers all to measure the harmful CO2 that we must stop putting in the atmosphere.

        Then they look at the data after a while and realise that it doesn’t show what they want it to show. So it is adjusted. Using more electricity (and CO2 emissions) to do so. Then sharp-eyed, knowledgeable sceptics spot some discrepancies and it all gets done again.

        In the first place, they could have sat in the garden – with a glass of something nice as some on here are wont to do – and observe nature. And do that again in the following year. And again. And again. All with minimal CO2 emissions. Then they could say “You know what, whether or not the globe warms up due to CO2 emissions, we will just have to do what nature does and adapt.”

        Night night, one and all.

  21. August 8, 2018 12:50 pm

    Sometimes proponents of the man-made global warming theory like to point to the planet Venus as a symbol of what happens after the tipping point is reached. The average temperature on Venus is extremely hot, 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Presently the atmosphere of Venus has around 965,000 parts per million (by volume) of Carbon Dioxide and the Earth has around 406 parts per million as of 2017. They are really at opposite ends of the spectrum. Therefore a good question to address this tipping point analogy is why does Venus have an atmosphere so dense in carbon dioxide?

    I suspect that they are not going to say that animal and plant life existed on the planet in the distant past and produced fossil fuels and then intelligent life evolved on Venus and figured out how to harness these fossil fuels into energy and thereby released vast amounts of carbon dioxide as a byproduct into the atmosphere. I suspects their analogy falls apart when viewed under this lens.

    • Up2snuff permalink
      August 8, 2018 8:23 pm

      James, I flew over Mt. St. Helens in 1981 and saw what the eruption had done in 1980. I flew over it again in 2007 and it was unrecognisable.

      This planet and its sytsems are far too powerful for us mere humans to control.

      But when some scientists believe themselves to be gods and get together with politicians who believe themselves to be gods and they have large pots of money gathered from mere mortal taxpayers, they think they can regulate our globe and the forces that it contains and requires for its continuing well-being to the ‘nth degree’ of control.

      They cannot.

      Even in the face of the tragic events in Japan and Indonesia, they still think they can control global warming and climate change like a well-to-do old age pensioner might turn up the thermostat when the outside and indoor temperature drops several degrees in winter. And they are killing some other old-age pensioners just to prove it.

    • saparonia permalink
      August 11, 2018 3:16 pm

      James Marusek:
      Venus has it’s dynamic atmosphere because it was originally a Cometary Body that was captured into our inner solar system. Immanuel Velikovsky accurately predicted that Venus, (also known by the Greeks as Hesperus, the evening star, and Lucifer, the morning star), was also called ‘Resister’ as it orbits it’s axis in the opposite way to all other solar system planets. It was feared by the Ancients and represented by a Pentacle because it’s orbit around the Sun appears as a five pointed star that we see today from Earth.
      It has been proposed that we could harvest energy from the carbon on Venus.

      Immanuel Velikovsky was a friend of Albert Einstein, who proof read for him. He was completely ostracised by the Scientific community after publication of his books, Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval. and he still is, to a ridiculous extent.

      • saparonia permalink
        August 11, 2018 3:21 pm

        James Marusek, sorry I missed out that Velikovsky said that when we got to Venus we would find hydrocarbons in it’s atmosphere and it would be very hot, this was 100% accurate. He also predicted that we would receive radio signals from Jupiter and other things that were later found to be true.

  22. Russ Wood permalink
    August 8, 2018 2:57 pm

    “We must all become stewards of the Earth.” Yes – but then, ‘all of us’ will have to have leaders, because ‘we’ can’t be trusted. So, with great sacrifice, certain ‘leaders’ will step up to tell us what to do. Heard this before?

  23. Alan Kendall permalink
    August 8, 2018 3:57 pm

    Hothouse Earth is apparently a less used alternative to the geological term “Greenhouse Earth” – wonder why they went for “Hothouse”? The definition of Greenhouse/Hothouse Earth is the state where there are no continental ice sheets. Wonder how long it would take to melt all of the ice sheets of Iceland, Greenland and Antarctica?
    I wish climate wonks would not trample willi-nilly over geology.

    • Up2snuff permalink
      August 8, 2018 8:30 pm

      Alan, to answer your question, it would appear from that paper and what the scientist said on the BBC, that Global Warming & Climate Change, scheduled for this decade (or earlier) and its delay announced last year to be into mid-century, has now been delayed further until two or three or four centuries hence.

      This Global Warming and Climate Change vehicle is demonstrating an unreliability of which Northern Rail would be proud or severely embarrassed or both, perhaps, as I am not sure which applies.

    • saparonia permalink
      August 11, 2018 3:00 pm

      The ice at the poles tends to last a very very long time as ice cores have shown us. However, when there is some surface melting, it alters the currents of our weather and the water picked up falls as ice, snow and rain. This is part of the prelude to a drastic FALL in temperatures. It is a natural long cycle.

  24. George Lawson permalink
    August 8, 2018 3:58 pm

    “We are the ones in control right now,……” Prof Johan Rockström, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, told BBC News “.but once we go past 2 degrees, we see that the Earth system tips over from being a friend to a foe”.

    What utter conceited rubbish

  25. August 9, 2018 12:12 pm

    “The record is difficult to interpret because many processes are acting at once: plate tectonics, continental drift, sea-level change and climate change.”

    England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland have literally and figuratively been all over the map through geologic time..

    The Appalachians, where I live, and the Atlas Mountains in Morocco, were all part of the Central Pangaea Mountains, formed through the collision of the supercontinents Gondwana and Laurussia. How did that happen? Well, about 480 million years ago, a continent called Laurentia, which includes parts of North America, merged with several other micro-continents to form Euramerica. Eventually it collided with Gondwana, the southern supercontinent that included Africa, Australia, South America and the Indian subcontinent.

    Not content to stay put, about 200 million years ago, the supercontinent began to break up. Gondwana (what is now Africa, South America, Antarctica, India and Australia) first split from Laurasia (Eurasia and North America). Fifty million years later, Gondwana broke up. India left Antarctica, and Africa and South America rifted. Some 60 million years ago, North America split off from Eurasia, in an early form of Brexit.

    BTW, the interior of Pangea would have been hot and dry due to the blocking of weather systems from either side. Now, do you want to talk about climate change? When I was working at the Smithsonian Institution, I saw a “T” shirt from an international geology conference: “Halt Subduction Now–Reunite Gondwanaland.” I am certain there were some serious takers.

  26. tom0mason permalink
    August 11, 2018 3:59 am

    A song for the BBC and all the other ‘Hothouse Earth’ propagandists….

  27. saparonia permalink
    August 11, 2018 2:52 pm

    I was taught in an Environmental Archaeology module as part of my honours degree that in the prelude to an ICE AGE, in addition to releases of carbon dioxide etc from forests, fires and volcanoes, the Oceans release gas that includes carbon. That was in 1992-5.
    Scientific American has published this article on 8th August,
    This is not new, the people propagating fears about us getting too hot are aware that it is the opposite that is coming. We are not responsible for it. It is natural and part of a long cycle. What we need to do is to educate ourselves about survival in cold conditions.

  28. JCalvertN permalink
    August 13, 2018 1:16 am

    I’ve downloaded a copy of the paper and am trying to plough my way through it. My reading is not complete but my thoughts so far . . .
    1/ Why does it take 16 authors to write a paper that is less than 7 pages long? Was each author tasked to write half a page?
    2/ The authors are supporters of the campaign to dub the present geological age with the name “Anthropocene”. But only one of them (Summerhayes) is a geologist.
    3/ They talk about their ‘analysis’, as in, “Our analysis focuses on the strength of the feedback between now and 2100”; and, “However, our analysis argues that human societies and our activities need to be recast as an integral, interacting component of a complex, adaptive Earth System” and finally “Our analysis suggests that the Earth System may be approaching a planetary threshold that could lock in a continuing rapid pathway toward much hotter conditions—Hothouse Earth”. Now maybe my comprehension skills are substandard, but I cannot find anything in the paper that remotely resembles an ‘analysis’. (Maybe it’s hidden away in the Supplementary Info?)
    4/ Why does this paper (which is less than 7 pages long) need to cite 88 references? More citation = better argument? It reads more like a Wikipedia article than a scientific paper! Or is it a ‘Literature Review’?
    5/ I expect a scientific paper to contain one or more hypotheses and an account of how the authors tested it/them. The paper’s hypotheses are pretty clear, but in the absence of the said ‘analysis’ I can’t see how the team tested them.

  29. August 14, 2018 6:51 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  30. August 14, 2018 11:24 am

    The simple fact is that providing my kettle boils at 100C and stays at that, there is no possibility that there could be an impending Hothouse situation in the absence of a major upset by say a large meteor strike or some such.
    The thermodynamics of water ensures this and provides the basic global thermostat which has been successful over millions of years to within around +/- 2.5% (my guess).

    For a major shift, Earth’s gravity would need to change or it’s orbital configuration.
    The biggest danger for humanity is the potential for an ice age. This mainly due to the fact that water, whilst good with an increase, is not very good at dealing with a reduction in global energy inputs. Hence the reason why the Earth spends much of its time being cold.

    For those acquainted with thermodynamics ask yourself why the the temperature is FIXED by the prevailing pressures involved, namely gravitational, vapour and partial. And then consider the workings of the atmospheric Hydro Rankine Cycle.

    As for this “Hothouse article” I join in the general despair.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: