A much needed strike for climate justice

[snoop1130]

A much needed strike for climate justice

by Aparna Sharma

 

 

I saw a sign which read, “The climate is hotter than Justin Bieber”. My preteen made her weird face and said,“I don’t think Justin Bieber is hot, Cole Sprouse is really hot”. Anyways, this article is not about who is the hottest man alive so let me bring the focus back to what is really hot right now. You guessed it absolutely right, amazon forests are burning and there is a growing fear that the worst is yet to come. Global emissions are reaching record levels and show no sign of peaking. The last four years were the four hottest on record and winter temperatures in the arctic have risen by 3°C since 1990. Sea levels are rising, coral reefs are dying and we are starting to see the life threatening impact of climate change on health through air pollution, heatwaves and risks to food security.

 

My 10 year old daughter told me,“There is a climate emergency strike in Bangkok on 20th September, I really want to go. Can you please get permission from school for me to go strike”. At this point, I have to tell you that I have never gone on a strike for anything in my 41 years of existence and I was really surprised at her passion to go on this strike. She is very particular about reducing single use plastic, she would say, “Mommy, you know how many turtles have died from eating plastic, honey bees are affected too, we won’t have honey if we kill all of them”. She initiated a few sustainable practices in the house so her request was not entirely unexpected so I sent in an email in to school and got a positive reply. This strike was supported by the Ministry of Education and hundreds of students took to the road with slogans demanding climate justice.

 

The impacts of climate change are already evident around the world. Thailand, as part of the Mekong River Basin is struggling to deal with these impacts which result in part from ecological pressures introduced by large hydropower dams, deforestation, coastal erosion and urbanisation. Currently, Thailand is home to a population of about 70 million and is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events such as floods and droughts which are becoming more frequent and severe as a result of climate change. For example, in 2011 Thailand experienced its worst ever flood event on record, at a cost of US$46 billion for repair and rehabilitation nationally and US$8 billion in Bangkok alone.

 

Full Story: https://expatlifeinthailand.com/expat-life/a-much-needed-strike-for-climate-justice/

 

-- © Copyright Expat Life in Thailand

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[4MyEgo]

Um, can someone tell the government to get serious about stopping the farmers from burning their rice and sugar cane fields, that I am sure will be a big help, especially for me and the family and the environment of course ????

[daveAustin]

Good the young are taking this on board because it generally seems the old dinosaurs born to oil and banking (who know it all and think it's all a hoax) don't give a monkeys. 

[brokenbone]

wow, that was a long pile of drivel !

im thinking the activists intend to wear down

resistance to the propaganda through exhaustion

[Salerno]

11 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

My 10 year old daughter told me,“There is a climate emergency strike in Bangkok on 20th September

Good to see breaking news on TV 

[faraday]

33 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Good the young are taking this on board because it generally seems the old dinosaurs born to oil and banking (who know it all and think it's all a hoax) don't give a monkeys. 

I doubt a 10 year old, or even a 16y.o. has much idea about CC, because some agenda driven leftie school teacher has indoctrinated them.

 

The way Thunberg talks is mostly ridiculous, along with all the other CC alarmists; as if the Earth is some giant oven that needs it's temperature turning down.

 

However, it is long overdue that everyone needs to be considerably more environmentally responsible.

 

Are you unaware of the various Green movements that have been active over the last 30 years? Or do you just think that because you are young, 'you' know everything, & anyone over 60 knows nothing?

 

Gosh, where have I heard all that before....?

 

????

 

 

[fruitman]

On 12/23/2019 at 6:13 PM, 4MyEgo said:

Um, can someone tell the government to get serious about stopping the farmers from burning their rice and sugar cane fields, that I am sure will be a big help, especially for me and the family and the environment of course ????

And can Prayuth stop the Somchais from burning plastic when it's a little bit colder than normal?

[unamazedloso]

4get climate change as its scientific fact its just a transition period. The problem is we are killing each other and all wildlife on the planet with selfish behavior. 1 and most important example is needless burning sugarcane and rice fields and rubbish. Im a farmer so know all to well the need to be a fire bug is all bs sonwhy does it continue? 

[fasteddie]

An Analysis of the Recent Climate Change Hysteria | Watts Up With That?

 

[fasteddie]

Just now, fasteddie said:

An Analysis of the Recent Climate Change Hysteria | Watts Up With That?

 

Carbon-Dioxide-Benefits-the-World-2.pdf

 

[Destiny1990]

There is no need to strike they have revolutionary idea to ban free plastic bags in shops.

The rest of the world probably will follow soon.

[AgMech Cowboy]

15 hours ago, fasteddie said:

An Analysis of the Recent Climate Change Hysteria | Watts Up With That?

 

 

15 hours ago, fasteddie said:

Carbon-Dioxide-Benefits-the-World-2.pdf

 

Thank you and we also have, Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace and former President of Green Peace Canada, who is trying to debunk the hysteria (http://ecosense.me/ecosense-wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CO2-Emissions.pdf).

 

I am thrilled to see the emphasis on cutting the use of plastic, because that is a huge environmental problem. Who wants to go swimming in the ocean or lakes with all the trash.

[RPCVguy]

A fair article on a worsening problem. It isn't being dealt with because our current global society is dependent upon, addicted to, and can not continue with its present values without fossil fuels. But, unless society shifts there is nothing but a dystopian future for the children born this century. Sadly, this gets chalked up to the bad luck of being born after the boomers of the 20th century embraced the boom and binge party attitudes enabled by industry in the post WWII era. Youth desire (rightly) to have an inhabitable Earth, and are slowly learning the full consequences of the legacy they will receive.

Since the OP mentions the Mekong river and dams, this is the start to a short but significant article on an ecological event:

"People living along the banks of the Mekong River in Laos and Thailand were recently amazed to see the river’s water turn light blue and become so transparent that they could see the sandbars underneath. It was an eye-catching sight and the phenomenon boosted tourism to the area. Yet the water turning blue is bad news."

https://www.sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/the-mekong-is-on-the-cusp-of-an-ecological-catastrophe/

The dams are being added both because there are more people demanding more water and because people also want electricity, which dams can help be generated.

Yet there is plenty of evidence that the climate is shifting around the planet. This is a current roundup of such stories: "

The 2010s may go down in environmental history as the decade when the fingerprints of climate change became evident in extreme weather events, from heat waves to destructive storms, and climate tipping points once thought to be far off were found to be much closer."
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27122019/climate-science-decade-2019-year-review-tipping-points-jet-stream-ocean-circulation

 

I've previously posted rebuttals to the limits metabolic for plants and mammals alike as to CO2 being helpful. This was part of a recent discussion:

 

Another image appropriate to Thailand is:

 

[Krataiboy]

The 2010s may go down in environmental history as the decade when the fingerprints of climate change became evident in extreme weather events, from heat waves to destructive storms, and climate tipping points once thought to be far off were found to be much closer.

 

More likely to be yet another decade of spectacular climate catastrophe prediction fails by the mainstream media and their "scientific" sources, if this little compendium of past bloopers is anything to go by.

 

 

 

 

[faraday]

Quote from above:

 

"...piloting electric vehicles"

 

Another order coming up for Elon....

---------+++++--------++++++++++++

With regard to post #14.....

 

30 years ago - or was it more? We were all:

 

"living under the threat of a Mushroom Cloud"

 

All those lefties running around protesting at USAF bases, marches & street demo's. Annddd, wee'm still here!

 

Why not try & change something, that really can be changed?

 

 

 

[brokenbone]

the stability of sea level rise is alarming,

btw cant see why y'all arent panicking when we all gonna die, scientists says

its game over by 2020, that is 2 days from now.

we missed the bloody timeline, its over,

good thing i dont have children etc etc

[RPCVguy]

 

I posted a detailed response to brokenbone, and all but this image vanished when I submitted it. The above image, like the one I extracted and posted on page 1, comes from this video by a geologist whose measurements are now part of the raw data people cite when referring to Earth's history. Here's the link https://youtu.be/Yze1YAz_LYM  

Basically, the video link from my first comment page one shows the LONG history of sea levels, far more than the last 3 million years when the Earth has been in a rare cool spell. The warming underway by releasing so much GHG (CO2, CH4/ NOx) is warming the planet 10 times faster than the worst previous mass extinction.
Sea level changes will take time, the problems along the coasts will accelerate this century. That will be disruptive, and expensive, but it is not the threat to human existence.

Humans and all species exist in a web of life, and each threat to species vitality threatens all the species it interacts with. Species can not adapt of migrate fast enough to survive as ecosystems they evolved to be in/midst. Pollination by insects affects much of our food supply. The length and temperature of the growing season affects crop yields. These are just two of the more existential threats set to unfold by as early as mid century. See my comment at:

Please try to cover full history in graphics. Then understand that warnings by scientists are mostly attempts to convey urgency to humans while the transitions are in geologic time. So long as there remains life, there remains the possibility to avoid extinction. the momentum of change in the interim of time lost not responding - that "merely" changes the number of lives that will be sacrificed, and the degree of adaptation that will be required to perhaps avoid going extinct.
Oh. the Prof. David Battisti video from which the food security comments were gleaned can be viewed at
►https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToMoNPwTFc&t=2090

 

[toast1]

Do you remember Global warming, and all the graphs, charts and experts who said we'd be sunbathing in Antarctica by now?
Remember all the predictions about global cooling in the 80's?

Remember the population bomb that was going to destroy us all in the 70's?

Remember how we were all going to die in a nuclear war in the 60's?

Remember when we had 7 years to save the planet, 17 years ago?

Hysterical nonsense.

[johng]

9 minutes ago, toast1 said:

Remember the population bomb that was going to destroy us all in the 70's?

That there is the problem, too many people consuming too many resources  emitting to much warmth and gas ????

[RPCVguy]

????

2 hours ago, toast1 said:

Do you remember Global warming, and all the graphs, charts and experts who said we'd be sunbathing in Antarctica by now? No, nowhere do I recall such - surely not by any recognized authority.

Remember all the predictions about global cooling in the 80's? Only by a minority, and only then because a) the ice age cycle was and is overdue. Back then the soot in the air was enough to do a form of geoengineering... quite unhealthy for lungs, but effective for cooling. Cleaning the atmosphere then allowed the resumption of heating the added insulation in the atmosphere was primed to cause, reversing the cooling trend and allowing heating to accelerate.

 

Remember the population bomb that was going to destroy us all in the 70's? Yes, and Borlaug's Green Revolution again supplied enough food - even as he warned in his Nobel acceptance speech that he was giving humanity a bit of breathing room to get the population issue under control. We didn't, so we now face the same problem, on a bigger scale.
 

Remember how we were all going to die in a nuclear war in the 60's? Yes, and many thousands of people protested war, and sought a negotiated nuclear arms treaty that avoided mutual destruction - for awhile.
 

Remember when we had 7 years to save the planet, 17 years ago? As I noted above: " Then understand that warnings by scientists are mostly attempts to convey urgency to humans while the transitions are in geologic time. So long as there remains life, there remains the possibility to avoid extinction. the momentum of change in the interim of time lost not responding - that "merely" changes the number of lives that will be sacrificed, and the degree of adaptation that will be required to perhaps avoid going extinct. "

Hysterical nonsense. ????

That humanity has avoided wars and famines in the past usually came as a result of a great deal of effort. What is being done today is a doubling down on mining coal and tarsands, fracking and pipeline infrastructure to accelerate the problem rather than any heeding of the warnings. Total folly, especially after decades of concentrated research that confirms the warnings - unlike some of the hypotheses that you listed.
The rate of effort per year to mitigate what is happening as Arctic Ice melts and permafrost thaws to release more GHG keeps getting more and more dire.

[brokenbone]

15 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

 

I posted a detailed response to brokenbone, and all but this image vanished when I submitted it. The above image, like the one I extracted and posted on page 1, comes from this video by a geologist whose measurements are now part of the raw data people cite when referring to Earth's history. Here's the link https://youtu.be/Yze1YAz_LYM  

Basically, the video link from my first comment page one shows the LONG history of sea levels, far more than the last 3 million years when the Earth has been in a rare cool spell. The warming underway by releasing so much GHG (CO2, CH4/ NOx) is warming the planet 10 times faster than the worst previous mass extinction.
Sea level changes will take time, the problems along the coasts will accelerate this century. That will be disruptive, and expensive, but it is not the threat to human existence.

Humans and all species exist in a web of life, and each threat to species vitality threatens all the species it interacts with. Species can not adapt of migrate fast enough to survive as ecosystems they evolved to be in/midst. Pollination by insects affects much of our food supply. The length and temperature of the growing season affects crop yields. These are just two of the more existential threats set to unfold by as early as mid century. See my comment at:

Please try to cover full history in graphics. Then understand that warnings by scientists are mostly attempts to convey urgency to humans while the transitions are in geologic time. So long as there remains life, there remains the possibility to avoid extinction. the momentum of change in the interim of time lost not responding - that "merely" changes the number of lives that will be sacrificed, and the degree of adaptation that will be required to perhaps avoid going extinct.
Oh. the Prof. David Battisti video from which the food security comments were gleaned can be viewed at
►https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToMoNPwTFc&t=2090

 

the only time we can ever see a correlation between

temperature and co2 is in the past half million years glacial-interclacial periods with 100.000 years evolutions,

and even then co2 is not the cause but the effect,

that is, temperature changes and then after around 800

years co2 has followed due to in/out gassing from ocean.

 

additionally the temp increase 1910-1940

was just as steep and just as long as the 1970-2000 increase, a truth just as inconvenient as medieval warm period, hence the frantic discussions among climate scientists how to 'remove the 1940 blip'

'get rid of the medieval warm period' & 'hide the decline

using manns nature trick'

https://web.archive.org/web/20070404001809/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf

[Chazar]

On 12/23/2019 at 5:53 PM, snoop1130 said:

My 10 year old daughter told me,“

was  she  ever  a  child and  not totally brainwashed?

[Chazar]

12 hours ago, toast1 said:

Do you remember Global warming, and all the graphs, charts and experts who said we'd be sunbathing in Antarctica by now?
Remember all the predictions about global cooling in the 80's?

Remember the population bomb that was going to destroy us all in the 70's?

Remember how we were all going to die in a nuclear war in the 60's?

Remember when we had 7 years to save the planet, 17 years ago?

Hysterical nonsense.

and  dont forget there  would  be  no  oil  by now and the 2000 millenium  bug

[Chazar]

On 12/28/2019 at 12:21 PM, RPCVguy said:

Yet there is plenty of evidence that the climate is shifting around the planet

because  climate   stays  the same forever eh?

[RPCVguy]

5 hours ago, brokenbone said:

the only time we can ever see a correlation between temperature and co2 is in the past half million years glacial-interclacial periods with 100.000 years evolutions, and even then co2 is not the cause but the effect, that is, temperature changes and then after around 800 years co2 has followed due to in/out gassing from ocean.
SEE LAST PARAGRAPH BELOW.

 

additionally the temp increase 1910-1940 was just as steep and just as long as the 1970-2000 increase, a truth just as inconvenient as medieval warm period, hence the frantic discussions among climate scientists how to 'remove the 1940 blip' 'get rid of the medieval warm period' & 'hide the decline using manns nature trick'

https://web.archive.org/web/20070404001809/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf

No trick, but continued analysis and far more powerful tools for analyzing data. See the main part of my response below.

Either you have ignored the video I've twice referenced as to long term geological history, or you are too set in your beliefs to accept the evidence. I'm responding because it is a slow news season during the holidays and because some people are still learning/ evaluating the scientific evidence, and need better facts and references than you offered. (Why did you mix regional temperatures of England with global CO2??)

You chose to reference a 1984 book. Its conclusions pointed to a need for more research about cloud contribution and the storage/transport of heat by ocean mixing. Both have been studied and refined with far greater clarity in the 35 years since your citation was printed. For clarity and ease of access, you cited:

Chapter 2 of "Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases" from the book "Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge For This Generation"
►https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237429936_Climate_Sensitivity_to_Increasing_Greenhouse_Gases
For those looking, the book overlaps a paper, also published in 1984 with an abstract reference at  
►https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html

Among the many studies and analysis of studies that are more recent, I'm referencing two below. First though, I'll start with this basic problem/ observation from 2013.

"The IPCC is rock-solid in its conclusions. In fact, if anything, this rigor creates one of the IPCCs weaknesses. Because the IPCC must meet the highest standards in two realms of debate—science and policy—it works under pressures that force it towards extremely conservative statements. Scientists know the stakes involved in getting the science right, so they converge on the findings that can be defended most strongly, and assign probabilities to those findings that can bear sustained scrutiny. This is in many ways as it should be, but it also means that work on the cutting edge (and assessments of less likely but severely dire consequences) tend to get squeezed to the sidelines. Scientific caution leads to a focus on what science can say about climate change without scientific controversy."
►http://www.alexsteffen.com/2013/10/how-to-see-the-future-through-the-ipcc/

_____________
From 2016, this paper is raising the value from 4ºC to 5ºC or more. (and remember Hansen's concerns as to cloud cover analysis)

"We found that the climate sensitivity increased from 4 degrees C in the default model to 5-5.3ºC in versions that were modified to bring liquid and ice amounts into closer agreement with observations," said Yale researcher Ivy Tan, lead author of the paper. Climate sensitivity refers to the change in global mean surface temperature due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Climate models predict between 2.1 and 4.7ºC (3.75 to 8.5ºF) of warming in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide." These results add to a growing body of evidence that the stabilizing cloud feedback at mid- to high latitudes in climate models is overstated. Moreover, several recent studies have concluded that other important cloud feedbacks also are likely to exacerbate warming rather than dampen it."
►https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160407221445.htm

_____________
So, now as to those clouds. This is the latest, most ominous yet best analysis we now have.  It was posted in August of 2019, referencing work by Joëlle Gergis, an IPCC lead author and a scientific advisor to Australia’s Climate Council. NOTE: it includes discussion of the 1940 question in your last two graphs...

"The new NCAR model is based on tests of nearly 300 model configurations, with a focus on how well the models simulated pre-industrial climate and how well they reproduced the main global temperature trends of the last century. These trends include warming from 1920 to 1940, a period of roughly steady global temperature with regional cooling in the mid-20th century, and a more sustained global warming since the late 20th century."

Basically as Prof. David Wasdell has long warned, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is far higher than Charney or Hadley had evaluated it to be. It has taken the ability to compile compute and map weather data on a 3-D basis globally over time to confirm this greater sensitivity. The low level clouds are now shown to burn off as the planet warms, letting more sunlight reach the surface and amplifying the warming yet more.

______________
Back in the WWII and early post WWII era, it was combustion during the war, and soot post war that then caused the spike and cooling - which is what I had alluded to in my earlier comments.

The remaining question (?) in you comment is whether CO2 change is in a lead or a lag relationship with temperature. The answer is that it exists in a dynamic equilibrium CO2 to temperature. When one or the other is forced out of balance to a new level, the other will follow. For the glacial and interglacial periods of recent Earth history, the orbital irregularities of the Earth have caused the temperature to vary, and CO2 has lagged. What is now underway has taken CO2 to levels far higher than in the past 3 million years and the insulation effect of the CO2 is now causing the Earth to warm up towards an equilibrium not yet near being reached. AGAIN, watch the video.
Here's the link
►https://youtu.be/Yze1YAz_LYM  

 

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, RPCVguy said:

Either you have ignored the video I've twice referenced as to long term geological history, or you are too set in your beliefs to accept the evidence. I'm responding because it is a slow news season during the holidays and because some people are still learning/ evaluating the scientific evidence, and need better facts and references than you offered. (Why did you mix regional temperatures of England with global CO2??)

You chose to reference a 1984 book. Its conclusions pointed to a need for more research about cloud contribution and the storage/transport of heat by ocean mixing. Both have been studied and refined with far greater clarity in the 35 years since your citation was printed. For clarity and ease of access, you cited:

Chapter 2 of "Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases" from the book "Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge For This Generation"
►https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237429936_Climate_Sensitivity_to_Increasing_Greenhouse_Gases
For those looking, the book overlaps a paper, also published in 1984 with an abstract reference at  
►https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html

Among the many studies and analysis of studies that are more recent, I'm referencing two below. First though, I'll start with this basic problem/ observation from 2013.

"The IPCC is rock-solid in its conclusions. In fact, if anything, this rigor creates one of the IPCCs weaknesses. Because the IPCC must meet the highest standards in two realms of debate—science and policy—it works under pressures that force it towards extremely conservative statements. Scientists know the stakes involved in getting the science right, so they converge on the findings that can be defended most strongly, and assign probabilities to those findings that can bear sustained scrutiny. This is in many ways as it should be, but it also means that work on the cutting edge (and assessments of less likely but severely dire consequences) tend to get squeezed to the sidelines. Scientific caution leads to a focus on what science can say about climate change without scientific controversy."
►http://www.alexsteffen.com/2013/10/how-to-see-the-future-through-the-ipcc/

_____________
From 2016, this paper is raising the value from 4ºC to 5ºC or more. (and remember Hansen's concerns as to cloud cover analysis)

"We found that the climate sensitivity increased from 4 degrees C in the default model to 5-5.3ºC in versions that were modified to bring liquid and ice amounts into closer agreement with observations," said Yale researcher Ivy Tan, lead author of the paper. Climate sensitivity refers to the change in global mean surface temperature due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Climate models predict between 2.1 and 4.7ºC (3.75 to 8.5ºF) of warming in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide." These results add to a growing body of evidence that the stabilizing cloud feedback at mid- to high latitudes in climate models is overstated. Moreover, several recent studies have concluded that other important cloud feedbacks also are likely to exacerbate warming rather than dampen it."
►https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160407221445.htm

_____________
So, now as to those clouds. This is the latest, most ominous yet best analysis we now have.  It was posted in August of 2019, referencing work by Joëlle Gergis, an IPCC lead author and a scientific advisor to Australia’s Climate Council. NOTE: it includes discussion of the 1940 question in your last two graphs...

"The new NCAR model is based on tests of nearly 300 model configurations, with a focus on how well the models simulated pre-industrial climate and how well they reproduced the main global temperature trends of the last century. These trends include warming from 1920 to 1940, a period of roughly steady global temperature with regional cooling in the mid-20th century, and a more sustained global warming since the late 20th century."

Basically as Prof. David Wasdell has long warned, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is far higher than Charney or Hadley had evaluated it to be. It has taken the ability to compile compute and map weather data on a 3-D basis globally over time to confirm this greater sensitivity. The low level clouds are now shown to burn off as the planet warms, letting more sunlight reach the surface and amplifying the warming yet more.

______________
Back in the WWII and early post WWII era, it was combustion during the war, and soot post war that then caused the spike and cooling - which is what I had alluded to in my earlier comments.

The remaining question (?) in you comment is whether CO2 change is in a lead or a lag relationship with temperature. The answer is that it exists in a dynamic equilibrium CO2 to temperature. When one or the other is forced out of balance to a new level, the other will follow. For the glacial and interglacial periods of recent Earth history, the orbital irregularities of the Earth have caused the temperature to vary, and CO2 has lagged. What is now underway has taken CO2 to levels far higher than in the past 3 million years and the insulation effect of the CO2 is now causing the Earth to warm up towards an equilibrium not yet near being reached. AGAIN, watch the video.
Here's the link
►https://youtu.be/Yze1YAz_LYM  

 

in order to sell me your merchandise,

you would have to

1] get rid of the medieval warm period & little ice age from history books

2] remove any trace of the 1940 blip

3] hide the decline of temp increase since 2000

4] collaborate with all the sites that store hundreds of

reports to delete all the hundreds of archived newspapers

reporting on the global warming 1920-1950,

and then proceed to remove all the reports of cooling 1960-1980.

all these data contradict ipcc & assorted gags narrative from 1995 on.

why was melting icebergs engulfing the world 1931 ?

[Nyezhov]

The words climate and justice should tell you whats what with their whole little movement.

[RPCVguy]

6 hours ago, brokenbone said:

This graph does not cherry-pick a time frame, but it leaves out tectonic plate shifts and other massive shifts that also were happening

 

Your inclusion of the graphic did force me to dig a bit deeper. I found an intense discussion of it and related images - See
►http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/

It is a broad discussion, with numerous researchers comparing ideas. The comments show how scientists interact, what concerns them, who has contributed what (like Gavin saying he's the one who made the graph used by Wikipedia.) The comments evolve more on the page 2 (I like #53, 56, 62, 70 --- and learned from 90)
A quotable quote in #106: "Unfortunately bad graphs are like naked pictures. Once they are out there, they will never go away."
__________________
Then, while looking through that post you've come back with another basket of stories. Sorry, news reporters making headlines is not a replacement for knowledge and research. The medieval warm period was not a global event, nor was the little ice age.

 

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London."
►https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99 citing
Neukom et al 2019 - No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

►https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
►https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2/figures/1
►https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2/figures/2
►https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2/figures/4

Bronnimann et al 2019 - Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions
►https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0402-y

 

THE PROBLEM with bad graphs and marketed denialism is that once it's out there the convenient lie gets perpetuated.
We know that unlike the premise posted by biology cabinet (where you took your graphic) not only is the planet heating, but the cause is attributable to human combustion of fossil fuels. EXXON knew, they knew decades ago and went to the same think tanks that helped Big Tobacco sell their products longer to create the doubt needed to replace an Inconvenient Truth with a Convenient Lie. Lots of internal documents got revealed and published in 2015. One was what Exxon's scientists told their management - back in 1982 as to the amount of heating to expect as CO2 concentrations would increase.

 

That was after earlier warnings, but by 1982 they pretty much nailed the planetary temperature increase.
Why did those executives do this? Greed and power are the quick answers. The above and other documents prove the lie is a conspiracy by the corporations, not the scientists.

As I close, after spending time trying to educate you/ free you of past propaganda, several proverbs come to mind. Foremost among them is

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Then again this is the end of a decade, so I'll sign off and wish you a very long life.

 

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, RPCVguy said:

 

 

 

your graph shows a probable increase of 2.8 degree every 20 year, 0.14 degree per year, and it is as a function of co2 according to the graph creator,

a 280 ppm atmospheric co2 increase translate to probable 2.8 degree celsius increase,

according to that statistician, a convenient probable 0.1 temp increase

for every 10 ppm co2.

 

now that we have established the underlying mathematics of climate science,

we can, using climate math, calculate the co2 increase during the period

1910-1939 interval.

 

climate scientists back in the heydays of 1939 had been measuring

temperature ever since 1910, and documented a near 16 degree increase,

0.5 degree increase per year, five (5) times higher temp increase then we see today.

 

now that climate scientists finally established and quantified the relation

of 0.1 temp increase for every 10 ppm co2,

we can calculate (16/0.1)x10 = 1600 ppm co2 increase during the period 1910-1939,

no small wonder the ice melt water was engulfing the world back then.

 

and now that i finally understand underlying logic of climate math,

i can more easily understand why every part of the world is

warming twice as fast as the rest of the world,

it all falls into place now, i can see the light.

thank you so much for providing me with the data

i needed to see the logic behind climate mathematics.

 

ps, do you have a link to that graph ?

it may well reveal a deeper understanding of universe,

or at least a deeper understanding of climate scientists

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eaxODT0oA0

 

 

[RPCVguy]

I now see that you did not bother to read the introduction to it. "what Exxon's scientists told their management - back in 1982 as to the amount of heating to expect as CO2 concentrations would increase. " I posted a screen grab I'd done of the chart, so had to do a search - easy enough to do IF you were interested in learning, instead of trying to be witty.
Try this for how widely the story has spread:
►https://boards.fool.com/exxon-mobile-chart-from-1982-34353458.aspx   ... or for a link with the chart
►https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/

So, to assist you in reading the graph, I've added some annotations:

 

3 hours ago, brokenbone said:

your graph shows a probable increase of 2.8 degree every 20 year, 0.14 degree per year, and it is as a function of co2 according to the graph creator, a 280 ppm atmospheric co2 increase translate to probable 2.8 degree celsius increase, according to that statistician, a convenient probable 0.1 temp increase for every 10 ppm co2.

What is only beginning to show up is the feedback loops / amplification of warming by factors like bacterial decomposition of warming soils in the arctic. This will not remain linear or near linear for very much longer.

 

now that we have established the underlying mathematics of climate science, we can, using climate math, calculate the co2 increase during the period 1910-1939 interval.

climate scientists back in the heydays of 1939 had been measuring temperature ever since 1910, and documented a near 16 degree increase, 0.5 degree increase per year, five (5) times higher temp increase then we see today.

now that climate scientists finally established and quantified the relation of 0.1 temp increase for every 10 ppm co2, we can calculate (16/0.1)x10 = 1600 ppm co2 increase during the period 1910-1939, no small wonder the ice melt water was engulfing the world back then.

and now that i finally understand underlying logic of climate math, i can more easily understand why every part of the world is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, it all falls into place now, i can see the light. thank you so much for providing me with the data i needed to see the logic behind climate mathematics.

ps, do you have a link to that graph ? it may well reveal a deeper understanding of universe, or at least a deeper understanding of climate scientists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eaxODT0oA0

 

The rest of your post got worse. The video by Tony Heller is an example of the quote: Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Do Figure

This returns to the folly of reading news headlines without understanding details of a story. 70% of the Earth's surface is water, and the oceans are absorbing 93% of the heat imbalance underway, but that heat does not stay at the surface. Looking at surface temperatures over land vs over the oceans, average land temperatures are increasing faster.  Knowing this pattern, most non-forest-shaded land masses will have some reporter able to say "such-n-such location is warming 2x faster than the global average." That was the general pattern of the laughable video by Tony Heller. The sea-level rise issue should not have been brought into the video either, but Tony maybe can't help himself from commenting on whatever he wants to make fun of. He just deserves a smaller audience.
This is a NASA GISS image.