4 ms·

I feel like we're speaking 2 different languages here. I am talking about runaway global warming. You're posting links about global warming. The difference is i

I feel like we're speaking 2 different languages here. I am talking about runaway global warming. You're posting links about global warming. The difference is in "runaway". I have the feeling you didn't read what I wrote in the thread, I specifically decried the loos of biodiversity in my first comment. My question and point of view was: is there evidence of previous runaway global warming caused by CO2. There were enough CO2 induced global warming events, but not runaway. My point being that at some point it will stabilize, we're not going to end up like Venus. If you're not going to talk specifically about what I'm saying, what's the point of flooding me with links? I am aware and agree with what's in there.

loopz 5y ago
Sorry, I misunderstood the question then. This article goes a bit into it, so might be an interesting lead: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-earth-get http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-ea... Since Earth is not like Venus now, this wouldn't have happened as Earth would've lost most of its atmosphere. But Earth have been a fireball very early on, and cooled down from that since solar output was much lower then. As the solar output continue to increase, Earth will become like Venus or a fireball, before it's engulfed. As solar output "only" increased 4% over some hundred of million years it would seem unlikely to occur from greenhouse gases alone.