1.5C Threshold Breached

Post Reply New Topic

1.5C climate threshold has been breached

Yet the response from the MAGAs will either be:

a) "But muh giant pickup truck..."

or

b) "Climate is not changing. Dem fires in Commiefornia are Gawd's punishment for wokeness".

Warming is good for us. It makes the Earth a more productive resource and brings on abundance and prosperity.

The disaster would be cooling. That would mean starvation and death.

By the way, the Earth was warmer a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climactic Optimum. What was the results of that? Rather than death, it brought about the beginning of civilization. It is because of that warming that we are where we are today.

The sky is not falling.

Red tide, ocean warming,species dying off......There are consequences...of Global Warming......just not sure all the details .but lots of Algae, were supposably helping to oxygenate the seas. ...posibly due to the size of the oceans
this could be a related issue ?

Buys a Titanium Umbrella incase of " Falling Skies"

We had red tides and species dying off well before the global warming hysteria kicked in.

By the way, did you know that just a few thousand years ago, sea levels were something like 7 feet higher than they are today because of the warmer oceans then?

Global warming is good for the planet? NOT in AZ!

I wouldn't want to bet on that.

I have read that the Global Warming is projected to offer little if any difference in the south but the effects will be greatest toward the poles. Arizona might not see much of an increase in temperature.

However, they might see notable differences in precipitation.

During the Holocene Climatic Optimum when things were notably warmer than today, the Gobi Desert was a forest, the Sahara Desert was green, and northern Mexico was much greener than now. i haven't seen anything about Arizona about their climate during that period of time, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were greener as well.

Do you know where the worst desert on Earth is located? It is Antarctica. There is one area where they get so little precipitation that what little rain that does fall is quickly gone due to sublimation. There is hardly any snow or ice on the ground in that area.

The Atacama Desert is similar. They have some houses there that were built of mud centuries ago. From the time they were built until sometime in the early to mid 1900's, it hadn't rained at all. Any rain would have shown definite signs in the dried much. It has sense then rained another time or two. And it is quite cold there, too.

No, I can't agree with this... on a basic level, warmth provides more energy, but the current warming is occurring so rapidly that plant and animal life will struggle. I was going to give some examples but there are so many it's hard to know where to start. We are likely facing mass extinctions.


Cooling would be difficult but the natural cooling cycle is likely to be slower, giving more time to adapt, and would eventually tip back into warming again. With human-induced warming, the natural cycles are disrupted and we can't be certain if/when we will reach a stable period. Besides, arguing that cooling would be a disaster does not counter the argument that rapid warming would be a disaster.



The beginning of civilisation occurred during a warm period in the earth's history, however the warming was on a natural cycle and overall was relatively stable. Current warming is faster and overall less stable, resulting in more extreme weather events due to the high energy in the atmosphere. Also, many urban areas are at risk from rising sea levels due to ice cap and glacier melting, and our current civilisation has more lives at stake. Also, the previous high temperatures were a maximum - which inevitably reduced due to natural cycles, but currently average global temperatures are still rising.

I would not call it hysteria. We are getting to the point now where the science is established enough that governments and companies may find themselves being sued if they do not start taking it seriously and act accordingly.

I live in Arizona. The summers are Much hotter! You should check out the number of heat related deaths we have each year. It’s in the 100’s and it’s doubled over the past few years. People are wondering if it will get too hot to sustain life at some point. I worry.

I live in Houston, with the same summer temps, but with tons of humidity.

This is hardly rapid compared to some periods in the past. For example, at the beginning of the Younger Dryas, temperature plummeted something up to 10 C in about 10 or 25 years. And the warming up at the end was nearly that fast.



Nope. Look at the Younger Dryas for a recent example. I think that our previous interglacial period, the Eemian, is believe to have ended very quickly, too.

Even more recent, the beginning of the period known as the Little Ice Age cooled off rather quickly.



Lots of nonsense there. The Holocene Climatic Optimum did occur during a warm period -- a warm period that was warmer than now -- and it was good for mankind. Our ancestors were finally able to end their subsidence lifestyle and settle down in communities and start farming.

As for oceans rising, so what? In the past few thousand years, they were about something like seven feet higher than they are today. If you go back to the last glaciation, they were about 100 meters lower. There is absolutely nothing that says that ocean levels should remain the same.

You do realize, don't you, that this is a cool period in the history of the Earth. Prior to the beginning of our current ice age, they were a fair bit higher than they are now.



Who did that chart? Some art student? It sure doesn't appear to be scientific at all. Throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks?

It is hysteria.

Have you ever looked at why greenhouse operators have greenhouses? Not only are the temperatures higher, they pump in carbon dioxide. The two together do wonders for plant growth.

Law suit arguments are just plain silly. Just about anyone can sue over just about anything. That doesn't mean that they have a chance of winning.

OMG no! You are talking nonsense!

I mean, OK, if you are looking at the entire history of the earth and geological periods of hundreds of millions of years, then it is true the earth has cooled over time. But trends over hundreds of millions of years is not the relevant period to be looking at with respect to impact on our current civilisation!

In terms of climate fluctuations since the birth of humanity, let's say over the last 200,000 years, the current level is not a cool period, it is an interglacial, which is a warm period.

This page from CSIRO
https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/sea-level-changes/#LongTerm
indicates that:

So yes, I agree that sea levels may have been a few metres higher at some point during the last interglacial, which was between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago.

CSIRO again:

So between 115,000 years ago and the present, sea levels fell over 100 metres and rose again. So if we are looking at the history of humanity, sea levels are higher now than they have ever been since our ancestors walked out of Africa.

And again:

If you are looking at the start of agriculture and civilisation, we are only talking about the last 10,000 years or so. Yes, this has ocurred during an interglacial (warm period) but it has actually been a period of relative stability of sea level. One could equally argue that it is stability of sea level which has led to our current civilisation.

If you are looking at climate change in the perspective of the entire history of the earth, you could perhaps argue that warmer climate may have benefits to life in general over the long term.

But if you are looking at the effects of climate change on human civilisation over the next few thousand years, your argument is completely nonsensical.

I should explain that I have studied applied geoscience at higher degree level which requires some understanding of geological history.

Unfortunately, I have found that many geologists by their knowledge of geological timescales and habit of thinking in the millions of years, may not appreciate the relatively short timescales of human civilisation and therefore underestimate the impact of climate change.

Many also are employed within the mining and fossil fuel industries which leads to at least to a reticience to speak out, and in some cases, blatant biases.

Even smart, well-educated people fail to grasp the complexities which is why climate change remains such a divisive issue.

It seems we've got some of these frogs on here too.