By Jo Nova
Last year, like every other year, was the hottest variation of something.
All the Blob Media reported the latest trivia in unison, with identikit headlines and matching Pantone Bright Red color.
2025 was the third warmest year on record
For some reason, despite their Pulitzer prizes, and daily acknowledgement of Dreamtime culture — none of the legacy media journalists remembered that prehistory even existed. It’s like 99% of the last 10,000 years never happened. The Stone-age, Iron-age, Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks — all, Phht. Not one of the “journalists” asked any of these scientists whether it was misleading to focus on the last 150 years when we had thermometers, when it was hotter for thousands of years, and there was no coal plant in sight.
The media is all bread and circuses. It’s a performance art designed to distract us and stop us noticing things that matter. Like the heat in the Holocene, and like the giant volcano called Hunga Tonga. (More on that soon).
Since the first Turks carved out stone pillars at Göbekli Tepe 11,000 years ago, there have easily been 3,000 years hotter than 2025. And we know this because sea levels were higher all around the world from 4,000 to 7,000 years ago. The climate was so different then, fish swam in the Sahara desert. and 4,000 bits of hunting gear and personal possessions froze solid in Norwegian ice that would not melt for 3,000 years.
Göbekli Tepe By Kerimbesler
Sea level have been falling for 7,000 years in Western Australia — one of the most stable and ancient pieces of land in the world. (Lewis et al). How could the world be cooler than today and the seas be 2 meters deeper?
It’s the same all around the world. In Taiwan giant oysters lived 3 meters above the current waterline. In Africa along thousands of kilometers of the entire west coast sea levels have been falling as the world cooled for thousands of years. (Vacci et al).
Hundreds of Pacific islands were “born” out of the ocean as sea levels fell in the last 7000 years. (Kench et al)
Human civilization was born in the hot Holocene and yet somehow we and the corals survived just fine….
Tell the children they called it The Holocene Optimum.
REFERENCES
Lewis, S.E., et al., Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review, Quaternary Science
Reviews (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.09.006 [abstract] (paywalled).
Kench, P.S., Liang, C., Ford, M.R. et al. (2023) Reef islands have continually adjusted to environmental change over the past two millennia. Nat Commun 14, 508 doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36171-2
Vacchi, M., Shaw, T.A., Anthony, E.J. et al (2025) . Sea level since the Last Glacial Maximum from the Atlantic coast of Africa. Nat Commun 16, 1486 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56721-0
You can add the Sydney Morning Herald to that list.
Front page. No mention of the Hunga-Tonga volcanic eruption. Blaming it all on CO2 and claims that every thing is getting more extreme.
371
The fundamental issue here is that warmists are what I would call for lack of a better word, “staticists”.
Like many other primitive or uneducated peoples, they fundamentally don’t believe in natural variation of the climate, the ecosystem or the planet itself. In the past, within recorded history, there have been periods of both wonderful warmth and miserable cold.
Civilisations have thrived during the naturally warm periods of the Minoan, Egyptian, Roman and Medieval eras.
Plus, we are coming to the very end of a rare interglacial. As the world cools, it will be impossible for civilisation to survive without coal, gas and nuclear power stations (and real hydro where possible, not SH2).
The idea that the earth and universe is static is a very primitive one and articulated by Aristotle in “In the Heavens” 350BCE.
It is only in the last 100 years or so that the ideas of Alfred Wegener (1880-1930), a real climatologist, geologist, geophysicist, meteorologist and polar researcher came to be accepted that the earth is not static. Among other ideas he conceived of continental drift which led to plate tectonics.
However, as early as 1840 Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) hypothesised that much of North America was once buried under glacial ice up to 3km deep and that climate must change.
Milutin Milanković (1879-1958) also discovered natural cycles in the climate.
Warmists have to do a lot of catching up with modern thinking.
441
Again with the strawman bs.
No scientists say the climate hasn’t changed , they moved beyond Aristotle long ago, though he still seems to play a large role in your life.
533
MIT climate scientist David McGee (professor of Earth and planetary sciences):
“For 10,000 years leading up to the 20th century, our climate was remarkably stable.”
210
Thanks for that. It’s an eye blink in time and he goes on to show the unprecedented recent changes can only be explained by human activity.
Don’t cherry pick scientific data.
229
While they made up such lies, SL rose 2 m higher then today. Well inside your 10 k blink of an eye. Now those 2 meters of fresh water did nothing to stop the gulf stream. Work or a little logic please. They erased the MWP, the Roman warm period, etc.
150
Roman warm period average temperature 3.6 deg F warmer than today
70
Gosh DA , you’ve nailed it, the scientists know nothing .
Submit your paper and you’ll get a gold star.
216
Alarmist scientists (sic) know exactly what they are doing and that makes it even more reprehensible.
60
Nothing that is happening today is unprecedented or caused by humans.
Since you seem a simple, straightforward chap I’ll keep it simple: CO2 levels, supposedly the agent of global temperature, have increased over the last 150 years, as have global temperatures. That’s proof then!? Unfortunately no. For a start humanity is only responsible for 3% of the CO2 increase:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html
Secondly, during the 20thC there was NO correlation let alone causal connection atmospheric increase in CO and global temperature as Professor Patrick Michael’s graph shows:
https://www.cato.org/blog/one-statistic-climate-catastrophists-dont-want-you-know
30
How did you derive the 3%?
Thanks.
20
Look at the IPCC Figure 7.3 which lists all the CO2 from nature and humans going into the atmosphere. Add up the totals and convert to %. Humans put 3% in.
20
That’s what I assumed and tried doing that before asking. I wasn’t getting 3%.
Can you illustrate the calculation?
Thanks.
10
The total movement of CO2 from both natural and anthropogenic sources to the atmosphere is 218.2 gigatonnes [Gt]; of that the human component is 8Gt; so humans contribute 3.67% of the annual atmospheric movement.
20
Every alarmist scientist says what is happening today is monumentally unusual. Start with Michael Mann and the completely confected Hockeystick.
60
‘No scientists say the climate hasn’t changed …’
The great majority of climate scientists (sic) are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
131
You’re the one who is obsessed with me quoting him. I only quote him as an example of an early incorrect belief of natural constancy of the environment, still followed by warmists today. Warmists assume any hot day or other deviation from the expected norm is unnatural and therefore “man-made global warming”.
Besides, for people who follow science, not “the science”, actual science, Aristotle remains important today because he essentially invented formal logic, categorised disciplines such as biology, psychology and politics, and introduced critical thinking methods like inductive reasoning. He also provided a systematic approach to knowledge, the basis of Western thought. E.g the practice of observation, logic and rational inquiry, All things sadly lacking in the Left and warmist ideology. Yes, he’s still important today.
111
Ok, I’m apparently the one who brought up Aristotle. You should follow ANY scientist’s advice and provide your right wing evidence .
318
It’s the warmenistas who are making extraordinary claims.
It is up to the warmenistas to provide the evidence for those extraordinary claims.
That is how science works.
The fact that they can’t provide that evidence, that all the evidence shows their claims are wrong, means that what they are spruiking is not science, but religion, because it relies on “believe” not facts.
30
Left, right, left, right.
97% of rational thinkers know that true science is not political.
Climate science being the exception – which is political science.
Left, left, left.
30
Is right wing the common sense alternative to the craziness of left wing?
50
Well that is an easy “yes” (until the right wing goes crazy anyway)
10
3 billion years ago the temp on earth was 1000F or more
That fact will be not as significant to human beings as the temp increases in the future. For the elites not a worry
00
And that’s just in the eye-blink of human history (geologically speaking).
Don’t even get me started on how warm the earth was during the much more significant 180-million year reign of the giant lizards/plants during the Mesozoic era, or the 25 million year reign of giant bugs during the Carboniferous period that preceded them. Warm weather has ALWAYS been a boon to both plant and animal life.
https://owlcation.com/stem/carboniferous-period-giant-insects
310
At the Copenhagen COP attended by Labor PM Rudd and cast of many people travelling with him the delegates from China told the audience about 3,600 years of records and civilisation when there were warmer periods recorded than present day and each warmer period brought increased prosperity from higher crop yields
50
Steve ,I can’t wait to see the response from the World’s scientific community when they read your paper.
112
It’s not his paper Ponz. But at least Steve is posting links to support his contention rather than just randomly slinging mud at commenters.
90
Ponzi slings nothing as weighty as mud. More like gaseous vapors than mud. Appropriate maybe for it’s (his/her) vapid mind.
20
Again, we can easily prove that Humans today live in the safest period for thousands of years and OWI Data provides the proof.
Yes the Holocene optimum was much hotter than today and SLR has not accelerated since the 1850s and is still about 1.5 mm a year or about 6 inches per century.
See the 2025 Dutch Engineers study than I’ve linked to a few months ago. We need to ignore our stupid MSM and lying pollies and only refer to proper data and evidence.
240
approx. 6000-8000 years ago (when atmospheric CO2 was ~260 ppm) Prudhoe Dome , a 2500 km² section of northwestern Greenland’s ice sheet, was de-glaciated completely, exposing the soil to sunlight. Today the ice there is 500 to 600 m thick.
The primary mechanism for the de-glaciation was the estimated 3-7°C warmer-than-present regional temperatures. This warming and the consequent ice cap minima was said to be “Arctic-wide”.
Perhaps Climate Scientists should bring back Noel Coward old song “Bad times are just around the corner”.
“There are bad times just around the corner
There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky,
And it’s no good whining
About a silver lining
For we know from experience that they won’t roll by.
290
This link shows the cumulative “thinning” over Greenland this century. You will note that the high altitude interior has negative thinning.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/3047/2025/essd-17-3047-2025-f18-web.png
The negative thinning just this century is 2m.
You will find that the reason given for the negative thinning is increased snowfall. Now who would have thought that a warmer world would lead to negative thinning of the Greenland plateau?
Surely any reasonable person would accept that as the world gets warmer, Greenland plateau will experience increasing negative thinning.
130
Any reasonable person may also say that ‘negative thinning’ is thickening.
200
But could you imagine the effort in publishing anything that pointed out Greenland was gaining in elevation.
100
Just pointing out the mission creep of the left in now subverting all sensible terminology and converting it to absolute gobbledygook to keep their dopey disciples ignorant of the facts. I’ve come up against it constantly in past dealings with academia and various levels of bureaucracy and pointed it out at endless, boring, unproductive ‘meetings’, their favourite method of assuring what they love to refer to as ‘consensus’.
160
The previous Eemian interglacial was 8 c or 14 F warmer than our Holocene and Greenland didn’t melt away and the Polar bears survived.
Our silly blog donkeys should check the FACTs archive from the co2 Coalition Scientists and wake up.
Even Wiki tells us that the Eemian I G SLs were 6 metres higher than today in our cooler 21st century.
Gosh and Eemian co2 levels were about 280 ppm and today about 425 ppm. When will they wake up and start to think?
https://co2coalition.org/facts/the-last-interglacial-was-8c-14f-warmer-than-today/
150
Wiki now states that global SLs were 5 to 7 meters higher during the Eemian, see the links first paragraph for the global 5 to 7 meters SL quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian_Sea
50
In general, be careful with anything Wiki says about climate, covid, politics etc.. It is a compromised source which has been taken over by Leftist activists.
290
David I usually say that “even Wiki says global SLs were 6 meters higher during the Eemian”, but that’s why I quote them because it works against their usual lefty, extremist point of view.
IOW I quoted them this time because it works against so much of their ant-science jargon on CC.
120
I know Neville, I was just making a general point.
40
De opwarming van de aarde is nooit homogeen geweest. De huidige opwarming van de aarde is nagenoeg totaal beperkt tot het Noordelijk halfrond en vooral de Noordpool
.
[English please. Is this what you were saying?
“Global warming has never been homogeneous. Current global warming is almost entirely confined to the Northern Hemisphere and especially the North Pole.”
(Result of an online translator)
– Raquel]
10
*Conspire* comes from the Latin word conspirare, to breathe together, and just like that – in unison, as if on cue – New Zealand’s *trusted independent* media outlets follow the herd, bleating like sheep being nudged by dogs/wolves aka the WMO/UN.
Despite snow on Christmas Day, last week we had a few lovely old-school 30 degree-plus days (37 was the max thanks to a warm dry foehn) as the remains of Australia’s warm spell drifted our way. Headlines claiming “heat wave” promptly vanished when a southerly cold front swept up the east coast, dropping temps back to the teens or low-twenties: ho-hum, so-called heat wave was gone before it even existed, yet eggspurts trawled the records – some back to 1956! – to claim hottest day evaaah™️ in certain towns… yet the official record still stands, 42.4C waaaaay back in 1973 [56 years ago] again thanks to a roaring NW breeze blowing in from Australia.
Then this morning on the national broadcaster (right on cue) they rolled out old Jim-jam Salinger [hint: Climategate] blathering his way through a prepared speech about how man’s emissions are cooking the oceans beyond recognition and we only have a few years left. Buoy oh buoy, a loony toy!
290
https://richardsonpost.com/howellwoltz/41470/why-greenland-will-declare-independence-join-the-u-s/
Dear POTUS 47 Queen Mary of Denmark may well be an Australian by birth and USA friendly but please don’t forget her intractable Scottish Heritage!
90
So she has returned to Viking land in Denmark.
20
I wonder if there’s a link to global weather authorities ‘homogenising’ the temperatures to fit the United Nations Council for Climate Change’s climate model and algorithm.
If they continue, it will be ‘2038 hottest year evah‘ while summer snow falls.
140
BTW the warming effect of co2 decreases as the concentration of co2 increases.
But try to explain that to our silly donkeys and left-wing extremists.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/the-warming-effect-of-each-molecule-of-co2-declines-as-its-concentration-increases/
100
Burning carbon fuels adds mass to the atmosphere. The 30C sustainable limit over warm pools increases by 0.2C per percent increase in mass. So doubling CO2 would increase the 30C to 30.006C. (Undetectable change)
All of the present warming and cooling and snowfall variation can be sheeted back to the Sun and Earth’s orbit of the Sun. CO2 observable impact is increased productivity of the biosphere. Also assisted by the entirely natural warming.
160
Its a good thing that I dont’ read any of those publications nor listen to the ABC. Blissful ignorance.
100
Naah Ross,
Not “blissful ignorance”, but “blissful understanding”.
Enjoy.
31
Once again with the same regularity as the Australia Day protests leading to every Jan 26th, the NSW and VIC bushfires are blamed on what else, global warming, nothing to do with three years of La Nina conditions, nothing to do with green councils refusal to do burn offs, nothing to do with idiots chucking a match in tinder dry grass.
All it takes is days of low humidity, hot winds blowing off the hot dry interior and 7 years of fuel buildup and whoosh, away we go again.
290
Rinse and repeat.
The lessons are never learned.
And since Australia’s flora and fauna was permanently altered by pre-European settlers’ practice of endless burning (e.g. extinction of all non-fire-resistant species) any additional burning for the purpose of reducing fuel loads could do no further harm than has already been done by previous primitive and inefficient “fire-stick farming” practices.
200
Just to be clear, eucalypts are not fire-resistant – on the contrary, they are highly inflammable. That’s why we have severe bushfires in the first place. They do, however, largely regenerate via epicormic growth – only to burn again at a later date. But your premise is correct.
110
Surely you mean that eucalypts are highly flammable?
61
Same dictionary meaning, Annie. As in the phrase – ‘to inflame tensions’.
40
When I said fire resistant, I meant that they would survive a fire, not that they wouldn’t burn.
60
Language is tricky, particularly English.
40
‘ … inefficient “fire-stick farming” practices.’
Those primitives sitting on a beach in Timor saw bushfire smoke and decided to build a raft. Sea level was much lower then, but still a risky venture. Australia was hell on earth.
https://news.griffith.edu.au/2021/01/22/the-tricks-australian-forests-use-to-survive-bushfires/
30
Sea level at geologically stable shore lines is pretty much the best long term indicator of global temperature.
See: https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-worlds-biggest-thermometer/
Sorry folks, I don’t post anymore.
KS
120
Thanks Ken, real science is hard to find these days.
NZ’s topography is the complete opposite to Australia’s, ie. volcanoes, earthquakes, uplift, submersion, yet the land tells the same story: BIG THINGS happened long ago, we’re in a [brief] respite of relative calm, enjoy it while it lasts.
River/valley systems here have easily recognisable terraces (steps, layers, previous valley floors) where the eternal ebb & flow of rain, ice and snow has carved & gouged its way through uplifted landscapes. Once upon a time there were HUGE volumes of water and/or ice upon these islands – where did it all go? Most of the ‘damage’ was done long before Polynesians arrived here c.1300 AD, coincidentally the beginning of the L.I.A., in their quest to colonise and eat (where are the moa? the huia? the pouakai?) so I’m pleading not guilty!
Some of our best-preserved marine fossils are now halfway between the coast and Mt Cook, in a side-valley off the Waitaki River (ancient underwater canyon) embedded in limestone bluffs from a time when turtles, plesiosaurs, whales & dolphins basked in warmer seas than we have at present. ‘Lost World’ is the slogan / sales pitch for this geological oddity near the towns of Duntroon and Kurow – will add a link when I find one.
110
Oops, almost: Vanished World 😃
https://www.whitestonegeopark.nz/elephant-rocks
No fossilised elephants have been discovered yet, simply nature’s playful [brutal] sense of humour.
https://www.whitestonegeopark.nz/vanished-world-centre
600 ft above sea level, occasionally buried under snow in winter, you too can walk amongst ancient aquatic behemoths now turned to stone, where lush forest used to cloak the land until hungry Maori burned it off in their hunt for moa, emu/ostrich-like big birds which made eating fern roots slightly more palatable.
71
Over the last 140 million years co2 levels have fallen to dangerous levels, yet the left-wing extremists don’t seem to notice or care. The OECD have already WASTED TRILLIONs of $ on this lunacy and yet co2 emissions have continued to increase thanks to the NON-OECD countries.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/140-million-year-trend-of-dangerously-decreasing-co2/
110
Yes. Had CO2 continued to drop to 150-200 ppm we would have suffered a mass extinction event. In times of Civilisation, it got as low as 280 ppm mid 1700’s. We were barely above that mimimum. But nature fought back. Hopefully CO2 will continue to increase to a safer 800 ppm or so which would also cause plant life to be more productive.
110
Oceans and ice shelves have huge thermal mass. Sea level change can lag atmospheric temperature change by thousands of years. Several metres of sea level rise is already baked in and will continue for centuries irrespective of how much we manipulate the future climate.
Regional sea level change can differ from global averages. For example, Greenland ice melt has a proportionally larger effect in this part of world because of gravitational mass change.
228
Does that mean that any measured rise over the last 100 years was just the delayed effect from a long ago event, and all the brouhaha over any measured rise in sea levels has little or nothing to do with rumoured AGW?
Or are you suggesting that any rise claimed to result from AGW has been tiny because it is delayed?
210
Yes Strop. “Sea level change can lag atmospheric temperature change by thousands of years ” What Simon is saying is that today’s sea level rise is more likely due to the Roman warm period and possibly an early expression of the medieval warm period. So nothing to do with us at all.
170
You’ve skipped right over the dark ages cool period effect. Maybe the sea will fall as the delayed effect transitions from the roman warm to the medieval warm.
Anyway, Simon brings good news if the rise has been small from those warm periods because the supposed AGW warm is not very different. But I’m not looking forward to using our Port Phillip Bay boat ramps when the sea level fall from the 1600’s little ice age arrives.
120
So you think the tiny atmosphere, 1/350th of the mass of the oceans and 4x the specific heat of air, drives the temperature of the planet, not the oceans? How does that work?
72% of all incident light falls on the mostly cold oceans and is not radiated back as infrared because the oceans are cold compared to land. Your argument is fundamentally that the temperature of the atmosphere, is effect, not cause. I agree. Atmosphere temperature driven Climate Change is rubbish. As for a small 50% change in CO2 over 250 years only over land, it’s insignificant.
210
I belive the oceans are about .5 above the atmospheric GMT.
10
What does that mean? Tonnes? Quickly atmospheric concentration is 0.042% by ppm/number. But ocean tonnes are 50x atmospheric. And the ocean is 350x the volume. So the concentration of CO2 in the ocean is on average say 0.042%x50/350 or 0.006% by ppm.
50
So since the Vikings lived in Greenland from about 1,000 – 1400 A.D. they were getting the warm effect of the Dark Ages.
And since temperatures were cooler in the Maunder Minimum (the coldest in several thousand years) the warming effect will continue for many years.
I would suggest you put your money with a bookmaker, although they only pay out when you chose wins.
80
Although to be fair, Erik the Red was probably just as prone to exagerration as any other real estate promoter. When he named it Greenland he wanted other settlers to move there.
A more honest name might have been Iceland but thst was already taken by Flóki Vilgerðarson when he named that place some years before.
In any case, Greenland was in fact much warmer than today during that period.
60
It is worth considering the history of Gotland in the Baltic Sea and now part of Sweden and the Vikings period (meaning travellers/explorers) when Germanic Tribes from Scandinavia travelled to many places, raided and even settled permanently. Gotland Island became overcrowded and a type of straw poll was held with the losers agreeing to leave and to be compensated for their land if any and other assets.
The Goths travelled to many countries, the Romans named what is now Germany to be Germania after the Germanic tribes people who defeated a Roman Army.
I understand that Greenland was promoted as a place to settle but was only one of many chosen by various groups.
60
‘Sea level change can lag atmospheric temperature change by thousands of years.’
That is not exactly true, the Little Ice Age is a standout. It was relatively quick and caused immense disruption.
https://rune.une.edu.au/entities/publication/92b40bbd-b2dc-431f-a6fc-2a4c4d87b8a5
72
And where in this region are we seeing the effects of Greenland ice melt Simon? Two of the world’s longest-duration tidal gauges, Sydney and Fremantle, only show SLRs of around 1.5 to 1.7 mm/ year, with NO acceleration. So where can these changes that you mention be seen?
50
I think Simon has fallen for the latest scare story.
HEALTH WARNING – Those who have been to Edinburgh should resist hysterical laughter.
That Global Warming will lead to Edinburgh Castle being flooded.
Some of the UK’s most well-known landmarks, including Edinburgh Castle, Giant’s Causeway and Liverpool waterfront likely to feel the impacts of climate change by 2050S surface water flooding could threaten millions of homes, including a 66% rise in the number of properties in high-risk areas-2]Major cities, including London and Manchester and parts of the North East could be hotspots for future surface water flooding(2]An additional 1.4 million more properties could be at risk from subsidence by mid- century 2)Leading insurer, Aviva, calls for urgent action to help the UK become climate-ready
This is discussed in https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/10/15/head-for-the-hills-aviva-warn-britain-will-be-flooded-by-2050/#comment-322228
Best answer from Denis Rushworth
Edinburgh castle affected by climate change? The rock on which the castle sits is about 443 feet above local sea level so sea level rise must not be the concern. Just what aspect of “climate change” is being predicted to affect the castle?
80
Simon, the facts don’t matter here, only politics.
24
I’m a social democrat, just like Simon, what’s your bent?
11
Guess.
10
You’re the only one being political.
10
The models “confirm” that it must be true. //Sarc//
20
‘Several metres of sea level rise is already baked in …’
There is no need for alarm.
‘The global average sea level has risen about 25 centimetres (9.8 in) since 1880.’ (wiki)
00
You seem to be out of your depth Simon.
Hello?
20
Over the last 4 glacial advances co2 levels fell to dangerously low levels and yet our silly blog donkeys and lefty extremists howl because they believe we should WASTE TRILLIONs more $ to place future Human life at high risk.
Why doesn’t the last 400,000 years not make them worry about the future life on our planet?
Thanks again to the genuine co2 Scientists for trying to wake us up.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/dangerously-low-co2-last-four-glacial-advances/
70
Don’t forget that the IPCC research specifically excluded natural causes of any climate change, hence ensuring no funding for such heresies.
But it will be interesting to see what happens as the IPCC’s inclusion in that magic Trump list of 66 items takes effect.
30
That is the time period for assessing climate change – not the ridiculous 30 year rolling “averages” used now to monitor what is essentially weather!
110
The 30 year climate period is a joke. Years ago the state weather department for California used to keep monthly records on paper. So they could record each day of the month, they had paper with 31 lines. This covered every day for all the months. So when Jim Goodrich, state climatologists for California, decided to look at climate, he thought it would be sensible to use the paper system they already had. 31 years seemed a bit odd, so he decided on 30 years as reasonable and it would fit nicely on their existing note pads. So 30 years is not scientific, but a time period based on nothing more than existing stationery
120
Yes Jo. You are quite right.
But as failed stock market investors always say it is different this time.
That was nature and now its mankind they say.
It is always different this time.
But of course it never is.
And the alarmists are really smart. Only really smart people can convince themselves of things which are really stupid.
120
Its the Climate Cult Jo !
They are blind believers in a dumb fake cult !
50
There is zero evidence that any period in the last 10,000 years was warmer than the last 10 years. About 8000 years ago, some local areas were probably warmer than they are today. Conservative writers are notorious for making up facts and doing no research.
119
Define zero.
Is that none, or just none that you like.
This chart indicates temperatures were warmer than today at about 1100BC.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Azunna-Ekejiuba-2/publication/372907145/figure/fig2/AS:11431281179176188@1691159467897/Greenhouse-Gases-and-the-Global-Temperature-Fluctuations-Long-before-the-Industrial.png
Suggests 1100 BC was warmer.
Just checking the math. 2026+1100=3126
10,0000-3,126=6,874
6,874 is a positive number. Therefore 1,100 BC is within the last 10,000 years.
from
https://medwinpublishers.com/PPEJ/universal-plug-and-play-real-time-entire-automotive-exhaust-effluents-industry-vents-and-flue-gas-emissions-liquefiers-the-game-changer-approach-phase-two-category.pdf
You’ll like it. It says fossil fuel emissions are causing climate change.
60
Oh my One go the website CO2 Science. ( Lots of evidence) Two, how did the oceans get 2m higher about 6.5 k years ago.
50
‘About 8000 years ago, some local areas were probably warmer than they are today.’
That is incorrect, the Holocene Climate Optimum was universal.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666033422000144
40
HCO effects were not universal across the globe, as it exhibited substantial regional and seasonal variations.
Even if it was universal, that was not my point.
My point is that the last decade was warmer than anytime during the past 10,000 years
The last 10,000 years includes the HCO.
The only argument to refute my claim would be to say that comparing proxies with measurements is not accurate. An average of local proxies is only owed rough estimate of the global average temperature.
Meaning averages of local proxies are all you can use to guess the GAT for 10,000 years.
10
Modern Humans first appeared about 300 K years ago and existed as hunter gatherers for most of that time.
But early Mammals have existed for approx 220 million years and were around with the Dinosaurs.
But today our Quaternary geologic period has the lowest co2 levels for the last 600 million years.
Obviously this has nothing to do with modern Humans, but it would be great to do our best to try to increase levels to above 600 ppm if this was possible.
It would further guarantee a better future for life on Earth if we were able to stop the low full glacial co2 levels falling below 180 ppm in the next 100,000 years.
Thanks again to the co2 Coalition Scientists for the data and history of co2 levels over the last 600 million years.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/our-current-geologic-period-quaternary-has-the-lowest-average-co2-levels-in-the-last-600-million-years/
50
In the now very dry areas of South Australia there are remains of an ancient coral reef
60
UN official explains real reason behind climate scare;
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
80
I’ve always loved the claim by warmenistas that the “millions of years old” Great Barrier Reef will die because of climate change.
This despite the fact that where the GBR is now was dry land 12,000 years ago.
40
The media always adds the phrase “on record” to cover themselves. It basically means since recordkeeping began. So, as JoNova says, they only focus on the last 150 years when we had thermometers (on record). Except that the temperature record is spotty, not uniform, readings are not taken at the same time each day in the same place, in spartan locations, or are just missing.
Do you think Europe was taking daily temp readings in each city during World Wars I and II? Of course not. There were only a few temp stations in Africa, and not for the entire 150 years. Asia, Russia, Siberia? What about the oceans that cover 71% of our surface? They also mix in reconstructed data along with observations to make these specious claims.
You’d think with Trump back in office, NOAA would get its act together, but they’re also pushing this same lie on its website, going back to 1850! They mix every type of dataset you can think of to make these claims. It’s gotten egregious in how they are undermining their boss in plain sight. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202513
21