There was debate last week when Peter Williams claimed the science on climate change wasn’t settled.
Turns out he’s wrong, the science behind the climate crisis IS settled…
Climate change: Current warming ‘unparalleled’ in 2,000 years
The speed and extent of current global warming exceeds any similar event in the past 2,000 years, researchers say.
They show that famous historic events like the “Little Ice Age” don’t compare with the scale of warming seen over the last century.
The research suggests that the current warming rate is higher than any observed previously.
The scientists say it shows many of the arguments used by climate sceptics are no longer valid.
When scientists have surveyed the climactic history of our world over the past centuries a number of key eras have stood out.
These ranged from the “Roman Warm Period”, which ran from AD 250 to AD 400, and saw unusually warm weather across Europe, to the famed Little Ice Age, which saw temperatures drop for centuries from the 1300s.
The events were seen by some as evidence that the world has warmed and cooled many times over the centuries and that the warming seen in the world since the industrial revolution was part of that pattern and therefore nothing to be alarmed about.
Three new research papers show that argument is on shaky ground.
The science teams reconstructed the climate conditions that existed over the past 2,000 years using 700 proxy records of temperature changes, including tree rings, corals and lake sediments. They determined that none of these climate events occurred on a global scale.
The researchers say that, for example, the Little Ice Age was at its strongest in the Pacific Ocean in the 15th Century, while in Europe it was the 17th Century.
Generally, any longer-term peaks or troughs in temperature could be detected in no more than half the globe at any one time,
The “Medieval Warm Period”, which ran between AD 950 and AD 1250 only saw significant temperature rises across 40% of the Earth’s surface.
Today’s warming, by contrast, impacts the vast majority of the world.
“We find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the 20th Century for more than 98% of the globe,” one of the papers states.
“This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic (human induced) global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”
…let’s take a wee gander at that chart…
…well, well, well, that charts looks a tad concerning doesn’t it folks?
For those claiming the climate always changes and it has nothing to do with human pollution – the time for denial is over the time for real political leadership is now. The truth is that the climate crisis stopped being about science a long time ago, this is a culture war now.
Those who have benefitted from the privileges of big polluting capitalism refuse to agree that the environmentalists have been right all along, even if it means cooking themselves and the planet.
Climate deniers and middle class minimisers are still the battlefront. Radical solutions are rapidly becoming the only solution.
To survive climate change we must embark upon Fortress Aotearoa…
- Move away from intensive farming and look to become domestically self sustainable in terms of food.
- Immediately ban all water exports
- 5 year Parliamentary term.
- Upper and Lower House (Upper House 50-50 split between Māori & Pakeha that can hold up legislation if unhappy about Treaty issues)
- Massive investment into R&D from Government with the understanding research is to benefit NZ first before sold offshore.
- Large scale increase in Navy, Army & Airforce.
- Mass limiting of tourism numbers with increased tourist taxes.
- Only citizens can vote.
- Sustainable immigration and an end to exploitative migrant workers.
- Resettlement Programms for all pacific island neighbours.
- Increase refugee in take to 5000 per year
- Fully funded public services.
- Mass Green housing rebuild.
- 100% renewable energy for entire country.
- Massive tree planting across previous farming land.
- Wholesale re-write of state services act to end commercial values.
- Investment into basic pharmaceutical production.
- Financial transaction tax
- Wealth tax
- Multinational tax
- Inheritance tax
The reconstructed and the instrument readings have a nice fit. What was ol Sean Plunkett going on about the other day then, saying most of the atmospheric warming gases (CO2 at least) were naturally occuring (>95%), and further that NZ contributions (farming) were miniscule and negligible? I see Jack on Q+A also asked Jacinda how holding farmers to only 5% of their emissions obligations was considered a ‘nuclear-free moment’, ouch.
You’re assuming, Martyn, that climate change deniers are motivated by science? They are not. Their zealotry is faith based. Science will never sway them.
Martyn, you keep saying “Increase refugee in take to 5000 per year” as a means to “survive climate change”.
Please explain.
Your other proposals pretty much make sense, some of them very sensible sense. I hope James Shaw reads your column.
Just to repeat… Why the toadying up to the military as a response to climate change? Increasing the military is the opposite of climate responsible action.
How is it the opposite? NZDF has made themselves an integral part of the climate response. They’ve got vehicles that can get to out of the way areas cut off by rivers not easily access by civilian modes and we don’t have to go hand and cup to private enterprize. Y’know when the poo poo hits the fan the elites will retreat into there gated communities with security that will be denied to the rest of us. That’s when you’ll want a military of your own.
So none of this could be provided by civilian civil defence? It all has to come wrapped in guns and armour. Because everyone is going to want to kill everyone else? Please. Show me a disaster where this is the case. The military stuff slows everything down and just becomes an excuse to spend money on real dumb stuff. Sub hunting aeroplanes for however many millions or was it billions must be real useful for climate change. Or the US military behemoth which sucks up enormous amounts of fossil fuels. Any military does the same. If the military is your solution to any problem then I think you should try thinking a little harder
In the refugee crsis provoked largely by events in Syria, the natural reaction by civilians with boats was to set out to sea to save as many of those whose boats were crumbling to nothing as they could.
The natural reaction of all national militaries was to prevent this from happening. If you think the military ever work for us the people then you are deluded. They work first for the elite in their gated communities and then may lend a hand to us if the overpriced and armour and artillery and electronics and firepower leave any room in their vehicles boats and planes to be of any use
No, civilians can not produce military outputs because there is no value or profit to be made in restricting immigration or sending a life raft 2000ks in the middle of the southern ocean during a hurricane. You can’t make money from this stuff, you can’t charge some poor fisherman $800p/h in jet fuel plus wages for extremely skilled staff, infrastructure, spares, maintenance, training. You don’t charge people money so you can be the hero. You don’t invoice some poor fisherman ten thousand dollars plus the cost of a raft in one wack after presumable losing his livelihood in a hurricane. That’s why there is a collectively responsibility and a social contract that values every human life no mater how poor or sophisticated. So that’s that.
perhaps we will require their services when the rest of the world sees our revolutionary and completely successfully new programs… deniers aren’t going to take kindly to being proven not only wrong but also utterly without morals… Trump will sure hate our guts and his army is fucking ginormous… etc.
No revolution has ever been successful with out the blessing of the army.
They are a job just like any other McJob yet there sacrifices are denied.
Any private or military personal willing to make those sacrifices will find commen ground here.
if most of your ideas were put into action the increased military would be needed to stop the riots but as there would be no money to pay them they would most likely just line up the politicians like they did in Russia
Several fundamental points missed in the list of changes.
Agreed with food and services supply being local and small scale. Probably with cooperatives.
Energy use must decrease drastically. Clothing to keep core temperature up is far more efficient that heating rooms, houses or modern wasteful air conditioning.
Many of the suggested changes rely on more oil We cannot harvest energy beyond a modest amount without using Non Renewable Natural Resources which is another problem.
Population numbers must fall not increase as suggested. Refugees outside of a modest local commitment should be conditional. Large family cultures will have to learn how to cope where they are.
Housing will be small dwellings or shared dwellings built of basic material. No cement, limited glass, Thatched roof design should be developed now as local materials can be used in place of iron. Clay tiles must also be explored. Earth walls, straw walls or other available natural materials are all viable..
A library of information will need to be archived in each community, maintained and updated.
Animals will need to be used for short distance transport of food and resources.
Umm.. why only go back 2000 years?…data I have seen shows average world temps were over twice the current levels before dropping off to a low 2000 years ago. Is this cherry picking data to support your argument?
Is there any scientific reason you only choose to go back 2000 years rather than go back say 6000 years which would give you a more accurate overall reading?
Change of community lifestyle may be best modeled on what was basic 200 years ago. But our numbers are much higher than then so further modification will be needed.
Population numbers must fall.
“data I have seen shows average world temps were over twice the current levels before dropping off to a low 2000 years ago”
What time period are talking about, what temperatures, and what is your reference source? The Earth’s temperature ranges from from -81° to +47°. Are you telling us that the planet’s temperature was twice that?? That would put temperature range from -40° to +94°. 94° is close to boiling point of water. That would mean most of the Earth’s surface would be scorched into a barren landscape with only some land near the polar regions being habitable. Europe and Nth Africa would have been incinerated, destroying the classical empires of Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc. Human civilization would have been destroyed, if it could have risen at all
What is your source of info, because it seems to be wildly off
Move to rail away from truck freight Martyn.
Remember trucks use ‘tyres’ made of oil and shed tyre particulates that are the same composition as plastic and are now carried to the ice packs as ‘black soot’ and are speeding up the melting of our artic and antartic ice caps now and entering our waterways as “road runnoff” and causing us cancer and nervous system damage.
ecars still use tyres. Not talked about but ecar will not be viable if we are to adapt effectively.
Personal transport will require some form of shoe for distance travel.
CleanGreen is right. Silo thinking won’t do it.
I know this isn’t adding much to what Martin is saying, but this has proved useful in stalling the arguments of the deniers. Ans it’s interesting…. Australia is now going through the “John Key effect” thanks to an amateur televangelist by the moniker “Sideshow Morrie”…. Do what you can people, because the death warrant for the Great Barrier Reef has been signed…. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-27/climate-change-denial-zombies-killed/11291724?fbclid=IwAR0_hWpKT_Vuq6bXwB1pJLcNTsZYPxSKggrxBrnMLT2rV8-Mm5-0EJamBec
I’ve already posted this. It didn’t get through (wonder why?). I’m posting it again. Scientists are very much divided on this issue, despite what is being reported here. Read their findings (which are 100% scientific and based on the same data everyone else is using), debate it, but please don’t pretend they don’t exist because it doesn’t fit your personal belief/narrative/agenda.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/
Comments are closed.