Earth's temperature likely marks hottest decade on record: report

[Chazar]

earth....how  old  are  you? ......4.6  billion  yrs...............records how  old  are  you ? 180yrs at  a  push

[RPCVguy]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Here's a chart

For once I will agree with canuckamuck. It was easy - he's citing my professor and IPCC climate scientist, Prof. Richard Blane Alley. Rather than leave it there, I dug a little deeper and am providing this set of charts that covers from several decades to 140 years when mercury thermometers were common (Celsius 0º and 100º were easy to calibrate and the British Empire was meticulous and gathering data around the globe.) Those three charts at the right are from Dr. James Hansen.

canuckamuck's chart is embedded in the time scale of the main chart at the top center left covering tens of thousands of years. NOTE the intensely steep rate of change that our century and current insulation levels from industrial activity is causing. Note also that the current temperatures already exceed the peak temperatures of the Holocene Era.

Lastly, the bottom left chart shows the millions of years of life - most of which was much warmer, suitable for reptiles, but not so much for mammals or for plants (C3 plants now are 85% but the prehistoric era was a time for C4 plant species. See https://biologydictionary.net/c3-c4-cam-plants/ )
As northern forests die off then burn, and drought takes its toll of current tropical forests, it will cause CO2 to spike even higher - just one of the feedback loops our global human society needs to get ahead of - if we can.
The danger of changing climate is not that the temperatures will not support life, but that the speed of change is far faster than life spans and the luck of evolution will allow.

[userabcd]

it's a wonder they never refer to the root cause of the consumption and pollution causing global warming and that is uncontrolled population growth.

[Tippaporn]

Climate change is a scam.  Period.  It's a contrived fraud to shake down the world's population to the tune of trillions.  Look at the people and organizations behind it.  These individuals stand to make vast sums of money for themselves.  And ask yourselves, will any of these individuals be personally altering their lifestyles?

 

Here's a great video which explains the scam very well.

 

https://www.pscp.tv/va_shiva/1yoKMBMPeNnGQ

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

For once I will agree with canuckamuck. It was easy - he's citing my professor and IPCC climate scientist, Prof. Richard Blane Alley. Rather than leave it there, I dug a little deeper and am providing this set of charts that covers from several decades to 140 years when mercury thermometers were common (Celsius 0º and 100º were easy to calibrate and the British Empire was meticulous and gathering data around the globe.) Those three charts at the right are from Dr. James Hansen.

canuckamuck's chart is embedded in the time scale of the main chart at the top center left covering tens of thousands of years. NOTE the intensely steep rate of change that our century and current insulation levels from industrial activity is causing. Note also that the current temperatures already exceed the peak temperatures of the Holocene Era.

Lastly, the bottom left chart shows the millions of years of life - most of which was much warmer, suitable for reptiles, but not so much for mammals or for plants (C3 plants now are 85% but the prehistoric era was a time for C4 plant species. See https://biologydictionary.net/c3-c4-cam-plants/ )
As northern forests die off then burn, and drought takes its toll of current tropical forests, it will cause CO2 to spike even higher - just one of the feedback loops our global human society needs to get ahead of - if we can.
The danger of changing climate is not that the temperatures will not support life, but that the speed of change is far faster than life spans and the luck of evolution will allow.

The chart on the left also belies the claim that we are still in a warming period recovering from the last ice age. If anything it looks like temperatures started to fall about 5000 years ago to a cumulative decline of almost 1 degree centigrade before it started to shoot up by over 1 degree centrigrade over the past 50-75 years. (It's hard to tell given the scale of the chart)

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, userabcd said:

it's a wonder they never refer to the root cause of the consumption and pollution causing global warming and that is uncontrolled population growth.

Before your assertion can even be analyzed we need to know who exactly is "they".

[userabcd]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Before your assertion can even be analyzed we need to know who exactly is "they".

They refers to the few in power and the ones pushing the climate change agenda. They are motivating and making the rules and laws for taxes, subsidies and controls for regulation of many things except they neglect to mention humans who are causing all of this.

[canuckamuck]

39 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The chart on the left also belies the claim that we are still in a warming period recovering from the last ice age. If anything it looks like temperatures started to fall about 5000 years ago to a cumulative decline of almost 1 degree centigrade before it started to shoot up by over 1 degree centrigrade over the past 50-75 years. (It's hard to tell given the scale of the chart)

If we go by that chart (which to me is a bit dubious because it relies on corrected temperatures which is NASA's term for fudged numbers) we see that the earth has only gained about .5 degrees since early in the Holocene. And for most of the Holocene the temperature had been dropping. So overall we are looking at a flat line which is finally getting back to warming us out of the ice age.

The bogeyman they have added to the chart is that the earth is moving out of the temperature that mammals evolved in.

Well firstly, there isn't anyway to change which way the temperature is going. And beyond that, there were way more species around before the last ice age. So if we can just get a couple more degrees warmer, maybe we will see a return to the kind of biodiverstiy we once had. 80% of the so called age of mammals (the Cenezoic) was hotter than now, most of it a lot hotter.

[Krataiboy]

5 hours ago, Bugsy777 said:

You can bet CO2 is warming the planet less than the hot money pouring into the pockets of Al Gore and his well-heeled cronies on the back of the carbon trading bonanza.

 

The high priest of global warming conveniently failed to forecast the emergence of this lucratived ponzi scheme in his 2006 horror movie, An Inconvenient Truth. But he's been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, RPCVguy said:

For once I will agree with canuckamuck. It was easy - he's citing my professor and IPCC climate scientist, Prof. Richard Blane Alley. Rather than leave it there, I dug a little deeper and am providing this set of charts that covers from several decades to 140 years when mercury thermometers were common (Celsius 0º and 100º were easy to calibrate and the British Empire was meticulous and gathering data around the globe.) Those three charts at the right are from Dr. James Hansen.

canuckamuck's chart is embedded in the time scale of the main chart at the top center left covering tens of thousands of years. NOTE the intensely steep rate of change that our century and current insulation levels from industrial activity is causing. Note also that the current temperatures already exceed the peak temperatures of the Holocene Era.

Lastly, the bottom left chart shows the millions of years of life - most of which was much warmer, suitable for reptiles, but not so much for mammals or for plants (C3 plants now are 85% but the prehistoric era was a time for C4 plant species. See https://biologydictionary.net/c3-c4-cam-plants/ )
As northern forests die off then burn, and drought takes its toll of current tropical forests, it will cause CO2 to spike even higher - just one of the feedback loops our global human society needs to get ahead of - if we can.
The danger of changing climate is not that the temperatures will not support life, but that the speed of change is far faster than life spans and the luck of evolution will allow.

Those three charts at the right are from Dr. James Hansen.

 

Was that, by any chance, the same James Hansen who in 2008 forecast that parts of Manhattan would be under water by 2018? Mmmm.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

Those three charts at the right are from Dr. James Hansen.

 

Was that, by any chance, the same James Hansen who in 2008 forecast that parts of Manhattan would be under water by 2018? Mmmm.

This is a lie told by denialists. Hansen was asked by the journalists Bob Reiss what Manhattan wold look like in 2018 if the atmospheric levels of CO2 doubled. The year he asked that question was 1988, not 2008. CO2 level then was 350.

https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

So a doubled level would be 700. Currently, the level is about 410.

[bristolboy]

42 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

If we go by that chart (which to me is a bit dubious because it relies on corrected temperatures which is NASA's term for fudged numbers) we see that the earth has only gained about .5 degrees since early in the Holocene. And for most of the Holocene the temperature had been dropping. So overall we are looking at a flat line which is finally getting back to warming us out of the ice age.

The bogeyman they have added to the chart is that the earth is moving out of the temperature that mammals evolved in.

Well firstly, there isn't anyway to change which way the temperature is going. And beyond that, there were way more species around before the last ice age. So if we can just get a couple more degrees warmer, maybe we will see a return to the kind of biodiverstiy we once had. 80% of the so called age of mammals (the Cenezoic) was hotter than now, most of it a lot hotter.

"So overall we are looking at a flat line which is finally getting back to warming us out of the ice age." So the accelerated rate is just planet making up for lost time after dawdling for 6000 years?

And just coincidentally climatologists got really lucky? Thanks for the non-explanation 

[canuckamuck]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"So overall we are looking at a flat line which is finally getting back to warming us out of the ice age." So the accelerated rate is just planet making up for lost time after dawdling for 6000 years?

And just coincidentally climatologists got really lucky? Thanks for the non-explanation 

Climatologists have created a nice little earner for themselves by acting as if the natural warming is our fault, and it is going to kill us all. They didn't get lucky, they are using the rise to be a threat. If it was cooling, they would just claim cooling is going to kill us and it is our fault.

All you Henny Pennys are making it so easy for Chicken Little. Chicken Little is selling umbrellas and buying beachfront property.

[RPCVguy]

16 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

If we go by that chart (which to me is a bit dubious because it relies on corrected temperatures which is NASA's term for fudged numbers) we see that the earth has only gained about .5 degrees since early in the Holocene. And for most of the Holocene the temperature had been dropping. So overall we are looking at a flat line which is finally getting back to warming us out of the ice age.

The bogeyman they have added to the chart is that the earth is moving out of the temperature that mammals evolved in.

Well firstly, there isn't anyway to change which way the temperature is going. And beyond that, there were way more species around before the last ice age. So if we can just get a couple more degrees warmer, maybe we will see a return to the kind of biodiverstiy we once had. 80% of the so called age of mammals (the Cenezoic) was hotter than now, most of it a lot hotter.

Since you're going to discuss the charts, I'm reinserting it here

1 hour ago, RPCVguy said:

Lastly, the bottom left chart shows the millions of years of life - most of which was much warmer, suitable for reptiles, but not so much for mammals or for plants (C3 plants now are 85% but the prehistoric era was a time for C4 plant species. See https://biologydictionary.net/c3-c4-cam-plants/ )
As northern forests die off then burn, and drought takes its toll of current tropical forests, it will cause CO2 to spike even higher - just one of the feedback loops our global human society needs to get ahead of - if we can.
The danger of changing climate is not that the temperatures will not support life, but that the speed of change is far faster than life spans and the luck of evolution will allow.

Now to your comment as a whole.

The temperature reconstruction referred to has nothing to do wit NASA (or calibration of satellite data.)  It is from the March 8, 2013 edition of SCIENCE and refines the number if sites used to assemble data like tree rings so as to generate both regional and then global temperature history since the last Ice Age. Marcott and team, by detailing records from 73 globally distributed locations were able to smooth some earlier estimates by adding more locations for the global average. Even so, there study confirmed prior reports that the early Holocene peak temperatures were followed by about a 0.7ºC cooling that reached its lowest level about 200 years ago in what is known as the Little Ice Age. Much of that paper dealt with how they were able to statistically align their reading with recent data to then derive latitudinal contour lines of temperatures across their 73 locations. The width of the green line indicates the level of uncertainty in their analysis.
I would be remiss not to point out that the Little Ice Age ended as Industrialization took off, though the relatively small shifts then were hard to differentiate from natural variability in weather patterns. Earth is overdue (on the pattern of orbital eccentricity and Milankovitch cycles) its next major drop into the cold of an Ice Age. We can thank the early, low level release of CO2 for preventing that trend. CO2, Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) are the most important greenhouse gases that are upsetting the 11-12,000 year balance of atmospheric insulation. H2o is also out of its historical balance, but that's because the atmosphere can hold aloft more water now since the other greenhouse gases have been insulating the planet a little more 24/7/365 ... for many decades. Every 1ºC increase in average temperature allows 7% more water vapor to be held aloft before it precipitates out.

Your assertions as to mammalian biodiversity have nothing to do with returning to a warmer climate. Those early mammals were generally small - rodent size. Many had to live by day in underground burrows to avoid the heat and the larger dinosaurs.
Warm blooded animals are best smaller in size in warm climates... it is easier to dispel body heat when the surface to volume ratio is high. It wasn't until temperatures dropped about 3 million years ago that warm blooded animals gained the evolutionary advantage to dominate the landscape. Then, when things got truly cold was when mammals like woolly mammoths could evolve and thrive. Colder temperatures favor the reverse in body size, so as to protect core body parts from loosing heat too rapidly.

Except for fish, climate change is the least important of 5 causes of loss to biodiversity. There will be limits to that. Heat stroke with drought already causes some local herds to die. What is ahead in the tropics will expand on that problem. Yet for now and in general, I agree with other comments about too many people consuming too much.

[RickBradford]

29 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Climatologists have created a nice little earner for themselves by acting as if the natural warming is our fault, and it is going to kill us all.

And the activists have created a nice little earner by pretending they care a jot about global warming, when the focus, as the sainted Greta reminds us, is that "the climate crisis is ... a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all."

 

That's why the activists are so opposed to nuclear power; it doesn’t dismantle systems of oppression - it only produces clean energy. This makes it quite unsuitable for using in the climate "crisis", which is more about SJW fads than about temperature.

[sirineou]

Global warming deniers claim that it is hot some place and cool in others

 

[RPCVguy]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

And the activists have created a nice little earner by pretending they care a jot about global warming, when the focus, as the sainted Greta reminds us, is that "the climate crisis is ... a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all."

 

That's why the activists are so opposed to nuclear power; it doesn’t dismantle systems of oppression - it only produces clean energy. This makes it quite unsuitable for using in the climate "crisis", which is more about SJW fads than about temperature.

Only clean energy during part of its life cycle... There are no totally clean ways to access - but distributed solar, wind, and regional ones like tidal can supply energy without the headache/ dangers of nuclear reactors.

 

 

[RickBradford]

Overlooking for a moment the fact that you quote a renewable energy development consultant as a reliable source for criticising nuclear power, let me restate the point.

 

Opposition to nuclear power is clearly not based on its actual suitability as a power source,  but on the fact that it does nothing to dismantle colonial and patriarchal systems of oppression, which is the important part of the climate movement. Just ask Greta.

[Chazar]

3 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

For once I will agree with canuckamuck. It was easy - he's citing my professor and IPCC climate scientist, Prof. Richard Blane Alley. Rather than leave it there, I dug a little deeper and am providing this set of charts that covers from several decades to 140 years when mercury thermometers were common (Celsius 0º and 100º were easy to calibrate and the British Empire was meticulous and gathering data around the globe.) Those three charts at the right are from Dr. James Hansen.

canuckamuck's chart is embedded in the time scale of the main chart at the top center left covering tens of thousands of years. NOTE the intensely steep rate of change that our century and current insulation levels from industrial activity is causing. Note also that the current temperatures already exceed the peak temperatures of the Holocene Era.

Lastly, the bottom left chart shows the millions of years of life - most of which was much warmer, suitable for reptiles, but not so much for mammals or for plants (C3 plants now are 85% but the prehistoric era was a time for C4 plant species. See https://biologydictionary.net/c3-c4-cam-plants/ )
As northern forests die off then burn, and drought takes its toll of current tropical forests, it will cause CO2 to spike even higher - just one of the feedback loops our global human society needs to get ahead of - if we can.
The danger of changing climate is not that the temperatures will not support life, but that the speed of change is far faster than life spans and the luck of evolution will allow.

Im Blaming   the Minoans and the Romans they did  far  worse

[canuckamuck]

38 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

Since you're going to discuss the charts, I'm reinserting it here

Now to your comment as a whole.

The temperature reconstruction referred to has nothing to do wit NASA (or calibration of satellite data.)  It is from the March 8, 2013 edition of SCIENCE and refines the number if sites used to assemble data like tree rings so as to generate both regional and then global temperature history since the last Ice Age. Marcott and team, by detailing records from 73 globally distributed locations were able to smooth some earlier estimates by adding more locations for the global average. Even so, there study confirmed prior reports that the early Holocene peak temperatures were followed by about a 0.7ºC cooling that reached its lowest level about 200 years ago in what is known as the Little Ice Age. Much of that paper dealt with how they were able to statistically align their reading with recent data to then derive latitudinal contour lines of temperatures across their 73 locations. The width of the green line indicates the level of uncertainty in their analysis.
I would be remiss not to point out that the Little Ice Age ended as Industrialization took off, though the relatively small shifts then were hard to differentiate from natural variability in weather patterns. Earth is overdue (on the pattern of orbital eccentricity and Milankovitch cycles) its next major drop into the cold of an Ice Age. We can thank the early, low level release of CO2 for preventing that trend. CO2, Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) are the most important greenhouse gases that are upsetting the 11-12,000 year balance of atmospheric insulation. H2o is also out of its historical balance, but that's because the atmosphere can hold aloft more water now since the other greenhouse gases have been insulating the planet a little more 24/7/365 ... for many decades. Every 1ºC increase in average temperature allows 7% more water vapor to be held aloft before it precipitates out.

Your assertions as to mammalian biodiversity have nothing to do with returning to a warmer climate. Those early mammals were generally small - rodent size. Many had to live by day in underground burrows to avoid the heat and the larger dinosaurs.
Warm blooded animals are best smaller in size in warm climates... it is easier to dispel body heat when the surface to volume ratio is high. It wasn't until temperatures dropped about 3 million years ago that warm blooded animals gained the evolutionary advantage to dominate the landscape. Then, when things got truly cold was when mammals like woolly mammoths could evolve and thrive. Colder temperatures favor the reverse in body size, so as to protect core body parts from loosing heat too rapidly.

Except for fish, climate change is the least important of 5 causes of loss to biodiversity. There will be limits to that. Heat stroke with drought already causes some local herds to die. What is ahead in the tropics will expand on that problem. Yet for now and in general, I agree with other comments about too many people consuming too much.

Thanks for trying to clear up the corrected temperature issue, but I see they managed to correct the temperatures in their favor, what a surprise. Every correction I have seen has maximized recent warming and cooled the past. I can't speak to their methodology, because I wasn't there to watch. But I wonder how the old charts and temperature records were all always wrong in the same way?

I see that you are pro-warming like me. Yes I don't want to see an ice age either, but I don't believe we are going to do anything about it. Nor should we. When the climate wants to, it changes massively. And the CO2 levels do not correlate to the big changes.  The amounts of methane and N2O in the atmosphere are minute and not a real factor. The amount of H20 in the air can not be so easily calculated in the way you say, yes warmer air creates more capacity for water vapor, but water vapor makes clouds at higher altitudes and clouds are liquid water which are not a greenhouse gas and they shade the earth. They they might have to condense at a higher altitude but they will condense because you only have to go 20,000 feet or less to get to subzero temps. The water content of the atmosphere is in thermodynamic balance. The amount of H2O in the atmosphere fluctuates from .5 to 4%

 

I am not going to bother with the evolution aspect. That is a very speculative field.

[Isaan sailor]

Some fun facts on global warming:

Who are the world’s #1 and #2 greenhouse gas producers?

Answer: China and Mexico

[JCauto]

21 hours ago, pgrahmm said:

Tall claims considering consistent accurate record keeping world wide with reliable instruments might, possibly, maybe, have been employed for possibly as many as 150 years during the millions of years of the earth's existence... 

Well then, Quod Erat Demonstratum! What a brilliant rebuttal of the decades of work of thousands of ignorant scientists who somehow missed the obvious error that there had been no science and no measurement for millions of years, therefore we don't know anything whatsoever about it!

 

Oh, except for this...

 

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/esearch/briefs/schmidt_01/

 

Those clever scientists! Anyway, could have been worse, you may have actually believed the planet to be 5,000 years old...

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

This is a lie told by denialists. Hansen was asked by the journalists Bob Reiss what Manhattan wold look like in 2018 if the atmospheric levels of CO2 doubled. The year he asked that question was 1988, not 2008. CO2 level then was 350.

https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

So a doubled level would be 700. Currently, the level is about 410.

Not so much a lie as a mistake made by Reiss when being interviewed for a book about the greenhouse effect. By the time the error was corrected it had already been promulgated widely among climate change debaters.

 

Reiss, in an interview about his book, recalled (as you rightly point out) that it was in 1988 that Hansen made his prediction about parts of Manhattan being under water in "20 to 30 years", but later conceded this was an error and that it should have been 40. 

 

Thankfully, according to the latest charts, Manhattan doesn't look to be in imminent danger of getting its feet wet. 

  No Change In Manhattan Sea Level For Ten Years

Posted on October 10, 2018 by tonyheller

Over the past ten years, sea level at Lower Manhattan has trended downwards about four inches.

[RPCVguy]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Overlooking for a moment the fact that you quote a renewable energy development consultant as a reliable source for criticising nuclear power, let me restate the point.

 

Opposition to nuclear power is clearly not based on its actual suitability as a power source,  but on the fact that it does nothing to dismantle colonial and patriarchal systems of oppression, which is the important part of the climate movement. Just ask Greta.

You didn't argue the numbers, only the source. The left hand column is of note. It was compiled from weeks of debate during a sustainability class, tabulating the arguments pro and con that went in circles, ever repeating.  The analysis by that renewable energy consultant held up during all the debate.

As for bringing Greta into this - Why? Yes, I get it. She is a proxy for all the climate activists currently dominating the news. So why are there activists? Is it because farmers are having their waters polluted due to fracking, or coal mining, or tar sands tailings, or pipeline leaks? Maybe it is people are awakening to the inequity in the system that bestows ever more power to those who can buy the politicians? That is a form of renewed colonialism... both domestically and internationally.  For many it is awareness that storms, droughts, heatwaves, etc are getting more violent or extreme - and the science says the excess energy in the oceans and weather systems are the cause. What is it worth to gain more machines and lose the life of the planet in the process?

Many species demonstrate an ability to spot inequity in treatment, and respond negatively to it. Humans are not unique that way, but we do resent what seems unfair. That's neither here nor there in this issue of climate. The physics, chemistry and linking math is clear. The dominant global society (which got there by out extracting and out consuming any/all regional neighbors) is now at the level of killing off the biosphere. The global culture only knows how to consume, it doesn't value or encourage self restraint that is needed.
Any prior civilization that faced environmental limits while also having a hierarchy of inequality has done what we are doing globally now - the elite holding to the course that got them into power. A more equal society does not assure finding a solution, but a society with inequality while stressed has always failed. That on a global scale will be a brutal time  - it is what I expect as the fate of children born this century. See Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): Modeling inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies

• The imbalances that human caused changes to the atmosphere have started equate to over 4 Hiroshima size nuclear bombs of energy per second absorbed more than radiated back into space.
• 93% of that imbalance is going into the oceans. Year in and year out the average temperature of the planet is rising, and
• The rate of change in climate exceeds by a factor of 10 the rate of change for the PETM that caused over 90% of species on Earth to go extinct
• Many extinctions are caused by a trophic collapse of other species which were essential - like what will happen as bees and other pollinators die off. When they go, so will much of human food supply.
  
  There is going to be a world of suffering because of the greed of a few and the decades of climate denial marketing by Exxon and the fossil fuel industry.

[ukrules]

9 hours ago, mickey rat said:

How long have they been keeping record? ????

Not long, like 0.00000001% of the time since life formed.

[digger70]

22 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Ice age isn't over yet.

C'mon you fools , all this <deleted> about global warming is getting out of hand .Just look at what History is showing us the last few 100 thousand years  Guess what, It ain't global warming it's History Repeating itself .

ICE AGE phenomenon. THANK YOU  ????

[swissman53]

It is true that the Northpole has less ice. But only NASA has there eyes on the southpole where the ice is growing.

Just listen to that Nobelprice holder. He has a lot of very good answers. (I hope it is not forbidden on Thaivisa to post a link from youtube) 

 

 

  

 

[swissman53]

It is true that the Northpole has less ice. But only NASA has there eyes on the southpole where the ice is growing.

Just listen to that Nobelprice holder. He has a lot of very good answers. (I hope it is not forbidden on Thaivisa to post a link from youtube) It is in german language but i'm sure you will find an original version...

 

 

  

 

[rickudon]

Actually history contains some interesting clues to the 'warm' and 'cold' periods in historical times.

 

First nearly all historical accounts of these changes refer to Europe and the middle-east, the areas of Greek and Roman civilisations and their descendants. In the rest of the world, little evidence exists - and some of it suggests these were just regional events.

 

Secondly, the end of the medieval warm period coincides with the black death - which decimated European populations. This resulted in abandoned land returning to woodland. The colonisation of the Americas followed, and massive population loss among the indigenous people, and further re-greening.

 If these (globally) insignificant events caused a drop in CO2, and possibly little ice age cooling in those earlier times, how much more impact have we been capable of since the 19th century?

 

We ain't seen nothing yet. The rate of sea level rise has trebled since the 20th century, and temperature is now rising at 0.2 degrees centigrade per decade (and accelerating). We will hit our 2 degrees of warming before the middle of this century, and who knows how much by the end of it?

[IAMHERE]

On 12/3/2019 at 6:45 PM, Aforek said:

There are still people who don't believe in "global warming " ????; ?

come back in one century;  you prefer to believe Trump ?  

Ah Ha; So Trump is the blame after all. That NoGoodNik !   ????