Climate change Was July 2023 really the hottest in 100,000 years?

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,329
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Just saw a tweet where some stupid poster claimed this last week has been the hottest in 100,000 years.

I asked how he could know that since we've only had the instruments to measure that and record it for about 100 years.

There was, of course, no answer. :)
 
Just saw a tweet where some stupid poster claimed this last week has been the hottest in 100,000 years.

I asked how he could know that since we've only had the instruments to measure that and record it for about 100 years.

There was, of course, no answer. :)

They always talk about superlatives and how they rely "on science", yet if it gets to concrete factual evidence, they oftentimes fall short. All the actions the climate activists undertake are, by and large, used by the government and corporations to act against the middle class and freedom of people, while leaving big business untouched. That alone should be a warning signal, as is the way these NGO's operate and get financed, protected by both mainstream media and state institutions.
If other activists for less favoured causes, favoured by the establishment, would do the same, they would be treated and end up very differently.
Gender identity politics and activism and climate activists are two facets of the same manipulation. Both won't better that much for the majority of average women, in any objective manner, as the consequences of the climate politics won't do that much for "the climate". Quite typical is how they targeted shipping traffic and fat oil that late, while concentrating on meat production, push veganism and slam private traffic, privately owned cars. It is all about more control and manipulation by the state-corporate partnership than saving anything.
 
Last edited:
Just saw a tweet where some stupid poster claimed this last week has been the hottest in 100,000 years.
I asked how he could know that since we've only had the instruments to measure that and record it for about 100 years.

In fact, there is a field of science, Paleoclimatology, which since the 20th century has studied the Earth's ancient climate using a variety of methods, such as the study of ice cores, the chemical composition of the air that was trapped inside it, to measure the amount of oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen gas that were present in the atmosphere at that time. Through this and other methods we have a good idea of Earth's ancient climate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blog...-scientists-reconstruct-earths-past-climates/
 
Last edited:
Just saw a tweet where some stupid poster claimed this last week has been the hottest in 100,000 years.

I asked how he could know that since we've only had the instruments to measure that and record it for about 100 years.

There was, of course, no answer. :)

That is very ignorant of you to say that. I am surprised.

Here is a graph of the average temperature on Earth in the last 400,000 years (source World Economic Forum: How to mine climate data).

global-temps-2.jpg


You can clearly see that Earth is much warmer now than at any point in the last 100,000 years, or in other terms since anatomically modern humans arose. That in itself shouldn't be a surprise since it was the Ice Age 100,000 years ago and it only ended some 12,000 years ago (see Last Glacial Period).

Maybe the issue is not that you don't believe that it was considerably colder during the Last Glacial Period, but that you don't believe that Earth has ever been as hot as now in the last 12,000 years? You can see on the graph that temperature have kept rising since the end of the LGM, except for one temporary drop.

This chart shows the evolution of global temperatures if we zoom on the last 2000 years.

Source: Phys.org: The climate is warming faster than it has in the last 2,000 years

1-theclimateis.jpg


Now let's zoom on the last 200 years (source BBC).

_110520516_meantemps4-nc.png


Clearly a huge increase in the last few decades.

The Economist just published an article a few days ago, which also have interesting charts. The article is well written as usual for The Economist.

=> Are the current heatwaves evidence that climate change is speeding up?

This year has shattered all previous records of temperature since industrial times, be it for the average global sea temperature or air temperature.

20230722_STC994.png



20230722_STC989.png



So yes, we can say with a high level of confidence that it has never been so hot on Earth in the last 100,000 years.
 
To get an idea of how exceptionally hot this July 2023 has been, look at the spikes on these charts.

F0SsfSNWIAI7FKs




F1f7Rn0WIAw6OXw
 
That is very ignorant of you to say that. I am surprised.

Here is a graph of the average temperature on Earth in the last 400,000 years (source World Economic Forum: How to mine climate data).

global-temps-2.jpg


You can clearly see that Earth is much warmer now than at any point in the last 100,000 years, or in other terms since anatomically modern humans arose. That in itself shouldn't be a surprise since it was the Ice Age 100,000 years ago and it only ended some 12,000 years ago (see Last Glacial Period).

Maybe the issue is not that you don't believe that it was considerably colder during the Last Glacial Period, but that you don't believe that Earth has ever been as hot as now in the last 12,000 years? You can see on the graph that temperature have kept rising since the end of the LGM, except for one temporary drop.

This chart shows the evolution of global temperatures if we zoom on the last 2000 years.

Source: Phys.org: The climate is warming faster than it has in the last 2,000 years

1-theclimateis.jpg


Now let's zoom on the last 200 years (source BBC).

_110520516_meantemps4-nc.png


Clearly a huge increase in the last few decades.

The Economist just published an article a few days ago, which also have interesting charts. The article is well written as usual for The Economist.

=> Are the current heatwaves evidence that climate change is speeding up?

This year has shattered all previous records of temperature since industrial times, be it for the average global sea temperature or air temperature.

20230722_STC994.png



20230722_STC989.png



So yes, we can say with a high level of confidence that it has never been so hot on Earth in the last 100,000 years.

Spot on Maciamo. Apparently some have had their brains evaporated, perhaps due to the exceptional heat, but I think more because of years of "fact free politics". Fortunately, sobriety prevails with you.
 
Here is a graph of the average temperature on Earth in the last 400,000 years (source World Economic Forum: How to mine climate data).

The really safe data comes primarily from post-1850 and here lies a fundamental problem, because in 1850 we were still in the "Little Ice Age":
The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals. One began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all of which were separated by intervals of slight warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

That was a very bad time, climatically, for Europe. In a way, a lot of the warming since then could be seen as a normalising trend, because again, the 19th century was still in a cold phase. That's something constantly ignored in the recent "climate debates", which makes the whole process absurd.
Also, the very idea that the European or world climate would be "stable" without human intervention is a naive expectation. There are a lot of factors influencing and changing the climate (like vulcanic eruptions, sun activity, changes of the earth axis, even sea currents etc.) which can all drastically alter the climate on the short, but also the longer term, and which humans can't influence and being simply subjected to, like all other lifeforms on this planet.

The greatest threat to mankind is not global warming, but would be another Ice Age, which, by the way, was the primary fear of the general public and many scientists before the "Club of Rome":

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]
In the mid 1970s, the limited temperature series available suggested that the temperature had decreased for several decades up to then. As longer time series of higher quality became available, it became clear that global temperature showed significant increases overall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The quality of the reconstructed climate is not the same globally, and for Europe, we can definitely say that we had warmer periods before and these were usually defined as a "climatic optimum" period, because it improved the living conditions in the temperate climate zone. The longest and most important warmer phase being the Holocen climatic optimum:

Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Because of all that, the current warming is a pretty relative matter, even if its real and changes our lives. Also the human made factor for the climatic change is not as clear as some state it to be. What I don't doubt is that the human activities are a major factor, but how big exactly and how to calculate the future climate in detail is a complicated matter, which some people claim to be exactly this or that, yet they are unable to conclusively prove it.

All of that doesn't mean that I'm not concerned and I actually did care about climate change and the human factor long before many others did (or were born), but the fundamental problem is twofold:
- the absolute, even totalitarian character with which some theories being presented as fixed facts and no critical public or scientific debate being allowed any longer, if its about a more fundamental criticism of some "political thruths".
- the concrete policies and political abuse of climate change and theories. Because even if some assumptions are correct and we want to fight e.g. CO2, Methan and other emissions to reduce the human factor in the current climate change, its no god given truth how we should do it and at what social, economic and political costs. Like giving up freedoms and choices, wealth and independence, for getting a very small effects in return and some actors just profiting with massive gains in wealth, control and power over the majority of people and the globe as a whole.

Take a concrete example: The CO2 emissions trading, which just created yet another perverted speculative bubble and financial enterprise, while its effect on emissions and "the climate" is highly questionable. Or the radical policy and campaigns against animal products and the push for veganism, which has a very sinister turn in taking away people's choices and giving even more of the agricultural sector to big corporations and ruining small farmers and local, independent food production. We will get highly processed crap to eat and the corporations will take away our local products and food safety, that will be the main effect.

Or the trend to force people living in big appartment blocks, instead of detached houses, with electronic devices for heating and again a lower self-sufficiency and higher dependency.

Of course, in Germany the situation is particularly dire, since the current government wanted to get rid of Russian gas (for which it has to pay anyway, because of the agreements it made before, which makes it even more absurd) and shut down the atomic energy production at the same time. This irresponsible decision will plunge Germany and all of Europe in an even greater recession than the COVID-pandemic and associated policies (another great achievement of the current establishment), the war in and payments for Ukraine, together with the sanctions against Russia and the following energy crisis would have created anyway - not even mentioning the current money and fiscal policies worldwide, the rampant inflation which started before all of that.
Anyway, we have the facts and we have the pollitical decisions how to deal with those. The facts are not as clear as some tell us and what's the most reasonable, best policy for the people to deal with the climate change and emission problem is also a different matter than just stating the facts. Its a political decision which should account for all aspects and consequences.

Again, I see the climate change, I see the problem, I see the human made contribution, the human factor and emission problem. How we deal with that, to really improve the emissions without ruining the middle class, choice and freedom, without just helping certain elements of the establishment to gain even more of everything (wealth, control, power) is another matter.

The shipping traffic and fat oil debate is a real classic on that matter, because it would have had a huge effect, and potentially a minimal impact on the average people and their lifes. Yet it was a largely ignored problem, because it wasn't as easy to abuse and the big shipping companies and big money had no real interest in changing anything about it. When politicians, big business and old & new influencers meet to talk about the climate, a good start would be if they would restrain themselves and instead of landing with their private jet or yacht, use a more modest and climate friendly mean of transportation. But that's beyond the mindset of this privileged class, which rather wants to "educate" and constrain the general public instead of changing their own behaviour. Even funnier if they live a high emission life in all respects, with 10 houses, 5 cars, a private jet and big yacht, but became "vegan role models for the climate" or tell average people how they have to restrain themselves, that's just disgusting.
 
Riverman, I agree on the whole with what you said. It's obvious that there are many corporations pushing their agendas and sometimes disguise them as a way to fight climate change, when in fact it isn't. A prime example is Tesla. Elon Musk would have us believe that if we all drove electric cars now it would solve the problem of climate change. That's untrue.

Firstly, all road transports (including trucks) only represent 12% of the global greenhouse gases. But most importantly EVs need batteries, and their production is extremely polluting and high in CO2 emissions due to the mining of lithium, nickel and cobalt. According to MIT climate portal, "CO2 emissions for manufacturing [a Tesla Model 3] battery would range between 2400 kg (almost two and a half metric tons) and 16,000 kg (16 metric tons)."

What few people seem to know (because the car industry and especially Tesla does everything to hide it) is that the production of a single EV battery is the equivalent of 100 barrels of petrol or driving 300,000 km with a petrol car consuming 5 litres per 100km.

Additionally most current batteries need to be replaced after 8 years in average. That means that anybody who drives less than 300,000 km in 8 years (37,500 km per year), which is most people in Europe, shouldn't buy an EV! All those idiots who do are just making global warming worse!

I suppose that the fast adoption of EVs in the last few years is one of the reasons why the climate warming has been accelerating. In fact, once you buy an EV, it already comes with a price tag of 100 barrels of petrol equivalent, as the battery has already been manufactured. It only has a lower impact on greenhouse gas emission after several years for people who drive really a lot like taxi drivers. For over 90% of the population, buying an EV is buying into the lies of the car industry that this is good for the climate. And actually that is only if people who buy the EV recharge them with CO2 neutral electricity (from nuclear, solar, wind or hydro). In countries like the US or China, where 60% and 72% of the electricity respectively is made from carbon sources (coal, petrol, gas), it's almost never an advantage to have an EV for the climate.

There are many other preposterous decisions made even by governments. Like you said, the German government's decisions to shut down its nuclear plants to replace them by coal plants is one of the stupidest decisions ever taken by any government worldwide in the last 20 years.


The really safe data comes primarily from post-1850 and here lies a fundamental problem, because in 1850 we were still in the "Little Ice Age":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

I don't think that's relevant. I'll show you why.

The quality of the reconstructed climate is not the same globally, and for Europe, we can definitely say that we had warmer periods before and these were usually defined as a "climatic optimum" period, because it improved the living conditions in the temperate climate zone. The longest and most important warmer phase being the Holocen climatic optimum:

Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


As you can see on the graph you posted, the average temperature anomalies (black line) in the last 12,000 years oscillated from -1.5°C to +0.2°C, although if you look only at the last 10,000 years it has been remarkably stable within a -0.5°C to +0.2°C range, after the initial phase of quick warming following the end of the LGP.

The graph shows a local spike at +1.5°C around 8000 years ago, but that does not represent the global temperature, just a regional anomaly.

This July 2023 we have for the first time experienced global averages that reached +1.5°C. Although that's less than a month so far, all evidence show that this trend is only going to get worse. This year is a super El Niño year, meaning that the Pacific Ocean is considerably warmer than usual from July to October. But its effect on global average temperature is only felt the next year (so in 2024). This means that even the current spike in global temperature cannot be explained by the super El Niño, which has barely started in summer. Climatologist expect the spike to go further up in the next 12 to 15 months, meaning that the annual average for 2023 and/or 2024 will almost certainly be over 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement aimed at avoiding such a scenario from occurring by 2030. That's a complete failure as it will have been reached by 2024 at latest.

So to be up-to-date the graph you posted should show a spike to +1.5°C around 2023. It already shows 2016 at +0.9°C. That's how fast things have changed in just 7 years.
 
There have been some promising advances recently in battery technology with the latest research I read claiming potential undegradable battery performance. I feel the biggest hurdle to full renewables will not be car related, but grid infrastructure. There needs to be a full overhaul for 99.99% of countries, and in many cases its either financially or straight up not viable due to tech. Once humanity develops ways to better store renewables generated energy within the grid for it to be used year round we will move swiftly ahead.

But yeah, most conversations never get to the costs of green, and the engineering behind it. Greenwashing is being used as a PR umbrella.
 
Another graph clearly showing the warming since 1850. It stops at June 2023 at +1.4°C, but July passed the +1.5°C milestone.

F1oUqQkXwAIqxFL
 
Another graph clearly showing the warming since 1850. It stops at June 2023 at +1.4°C, but July passed the +1.5°C milestone.

733c5c05-874e-4e9e-9fa8-2c92e54bcce9

You do whatever you and Europe need to do Maciamo. American Politics is so toxic that global climate change debates are in the political frey, you’ll get some action from American Major cities/suburbs though. ^_^
 
A few months after I explained it on Eupedia, climate scientist from Copernicus are telling the BBC exactly what I said.

"Samantha Burgess, Deputy Director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said that a combination of its data and that of the UN suggested 2023 may be "warmer than anything that the planet has seen for 125,000 years"."
 
Interesting thread Maciamo, even if I didn't take part in it.
I 'd be pleased if I could put some 'like's but I don"t know how to doit in your new look of forum?'
 

This thread has been viewed 2656 times.

Back
Top