See the correlation? No, neither can I. (image from WUWT)
… except with between 5 and 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. What? How could that possibly be? We all know (thanks to government spin and media bias) that CO2 is the main driver of climate (© IPCC) and that powerful positive feedbacks would conspire together to spiral the earth’s climate over thousands of tipping points from which recovery is impossible, right?
An international team of scientists including Mark Williams and Jan Zalasiewicz of the Geology Department of the University of Leicester, and led by Dr. Thijs Vandenbroucke, formerly of Leicester and now at the University of Lille 1 (France), has reconstructed the Earth’s climate belts of the late Ordovician Period, between 460 and 445 million years ago.
The findings have been published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA – and show that these ancient climate belts were surprisingly like those of the present.
The researchers state: “The world of the ancient past had been thought by scientists to differ from ours in many respects, including having carbon dioxide levels much higher – over twenty times as high – than those of the present. However, it is very hard to deduce carbon dioxide levels with any accuracy from such ancient rocks, and it was known that there was a paradox, for the late Ordovician was known to include a brief, intense glaciation – something difficult to envisage in a world with high levels of greenhouse gases.” (source)
Well, it’s certainly difficult to envisage if you’ve been brainwashed with the CO2 meme.
(h/t Climate Depot, WUWT)
Australian Climate Madness 
“These ancient, but modern-looking oceans emphasise the stability of Earth’s atmosphere and climate through deep time – and show the current man-made rise in greenhouse gas levels to be an even more striking phenomenon than was thought,” the researchers conclude.”
I think you should include the last comment from your source.
@Eb: I saw it. The best example of a non-sequitur I have seen in ages – put in no doubt to keep the alarmists happy, and the funds flowing (remember, scepticism on climate is the quickest way to lose your research funding). Given that the climate has virtually no sensitivity to CO2, because the absorption decreases logarithmically and the majority of the warming caused by CO2 is in the first 20ppm (and the feedbacks in climate models are hopelessly exaggerated), why should an increase of a hundred or so PPM (or one hundredth of one percent in 200 years) be a “striking phenomenon”?
Just a thought…..If the planet did warm extraordinarily, It should follow that the oceans would evaporate causing clouds blocking out the sun . I’ve noticed over the years that even in high summer, when we get prolonged cloud cover, the temperature plummets. I know that this sounds simplistic but just maybe, the Earth’s temperature is self regulating. Now wouldn’t that be a shame for some.
@ Simon. Again, just making sure people get the whole picture, it is after all, their conclusion.
True in some cases, although scepticism on climate change is also one of the quickest ways to gain research funding, if you know where to look.
Well I’m no expert on moddeling. But the people who drew that conclusion were. And remember that the human race and the many other lifeforms on earth (at least the chordates, many inverts and many plants… Not the bactera etc…) cannot survive such average temperatures as those displayed in the past. the genus Homo only evolved a mere few Million years ago! A tiny blip at the end of that figure above. Amazing isn’t it?
@Lee, If that were to happen, it would be devistating to all life on earth! Perhaps some form of extremophile bacteria would survive. But it is nice to think that the earth would eventually begin the cycle of life-forming again. Slim sliver lining to those clouds.
@Eb….You being an environmental scientist and all, I would have thought that you would have at least commented on my post. Perhaps there’s not enough jargon or esoteric stuff. By the way it’s modeling NOT moddeling
@ les. Sorry, I did comment on your post but I called you lee by accident. And thank you for notifying me of the typo, I assure you that I do know how to spell modeling.
How else would you have liked me to comment? The scenario you have proposed would see the end of life as we know it. As for your comment: “Now wouldn’t that be a shame for some” what did you mean exactly?
@Eb,So if the world warmed extraordinarily, and clouds formed and then the world cooled, life as we know it would perish? and only extremophile bacteria would survive. Jeeez Those degrees in Environmentology are handy!
PS A shame for the AGW aka CC carpetbaggers
PPS It’s spelt devastating NOT devistating …..Btw did you have to do a spelling test before they taught you about extremophile bacteria…just asking.
Me thinks a bit of BS going on here.
@Les. Yes, they are handy. I just feel so much better if I can hug my trees with a signed piece of paper in my hand.
Yes, if the oceans evaporated and the sun was blocked out (i.e. your scenario) then most of the life on earth would perish. Or perhaps you think that the basic process of photosynthesis can carry on without solar energy? Or that marine life will spontaneously adapt to life in the open air? If you know of a way to survive that, let us know.
Trying damn hard to keep a civil tongue. If spelling devastating wrong is the worst thing that happens to me today then its a lucky day.
What do you have against extremophile bacteria?
P.S. P.S. has two full stops in it, as it is an abbreviation for the Latin ‘post scriptum’. But you would already know that.