'Little Ice Age' which froze the River Thames caused by Americas genocide, study finds

First topic message reminder :

The “Little Ice Age” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was triggered by the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas by European settlers, new research shows.

Scientists have long wondered what caused the drop in temperatures so severe it sometimes caused the River Thames to freeze over.

Now, new analysis by University College London (UCL) argues that so many people were slaughtered or died of disease that the amount of agricultural land dramatically reduced, in turn sucking carbon dioxide (CO²) from the atmosphere.

Known as the “Great Dying”, the upheavals following the first contact with Europeans in 1492 is thought to have slashed the population of 60 million living across the Americas down to five or six million within just 100 years.

Published in Quaternary Science Reviews, the study found that much of the land previously cultivated by indigenous civilisations would have fallen into disuse, becoming swallowed up by forest and grassland.

It estimates that an area of 56 million hectares, roughly the size of modern-day France, would have been rewilded in this way.

The scale of the change is believed to have drawn an amount of CO² from the atmosphere equivalent to two years’ fossil fuel emissions at the present rate.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/01/31/little-ice-age-cased-thames-freeze-caused-americas-genocide/

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:The little ice age started in 1315. 

What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue?

Wrong, the ice age did not start in  1315

Tempretures began to drop in  1315

So what does it matter when Columbus set sail, even more so when  Vikings discovered America?

1492. It's right there on your link.  

Ciao!

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:
Wrong, the ice age did not start in  1315

Tempretures began to drop in  1315

So what does it matter when Columbus set sail, even more so when  Vikings discovered America?

1492. It's right there on your link.  

Ciao!

lol can you read a graph mate?

The mini ice age happened after the black death.. As that was between 1347 to 1351.


During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of theLittle Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.

Again there is no doubt that cooling occured around 1300, but that is not the start of the mini ice age

My Goldfish Pond was frozen this Morning !

that will be a micro ice age then Nicko

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


1492. It's right there on your link.  

Ciao!

lol can you read a graph mate?

The mini ice age happened after the black death.. As that was between 1347 to 1351.


During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of theLittle Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.

Again there is no doubt that cooling occured around 1300, but that is not the start of the mini ice age

Can you read your original post?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


lol can you read a graph mate?

The mini ice age happened after the black death.. As that was between 1347 to 1351.


During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of theLittle Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.

Again there is no doubt that cooling occured around 1300, but that is not the start of the mini ice age

Can you read your original post?

Of course.

Would you like me to post in full for you mate?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


1492. It's right there on your link.  

Ciao!

lol can you read a graph mate?

The mini ice age happened after the black death.. As that was between 1347 to 1351.


During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of theLittle Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.

Again there is no doubt that cooling occured around 1300, but that is not the start of the mini ice age

Beginning in the spring of 1315, cold weather and torrential rains decimated crops and livestock across Europe. Class warfare and political strife destabilized formerly prosperous countries as millions of people starved, setting the stage for the crises of the Late Middle Ages. According to reports, some desperate Europeans resorted to cannibalism during the so-called Great Famine, which persisted until the early 1320s.

https://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

https://www.eh-resources.org/timeline-middle-ages/

And another source.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


lol can you read a graph mate?

The mini ice age happened after the black death.. As that was between 1347 to 1351.


During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of theLittle Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550.

Again there is no doubt that cooling occured around 1300, but that is not the start of the mini ice age

Beginning in the spring of 1315, cold weather and torrential rains decimated crops and livestock across Europe. Class warfare and political strife destabilized formerly prosperous countries as millions of people starved, setting the stage for the crises of the Late Middle Ages. According to reports, some desperate Europeans resorted to cannibalism during the so-called Great Famine, which persisted until the early 1320s.

https://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

Which was only the start of the climate startng to cool

I find it interesting that you use historical sources here on science

Does that mean the cooling would have continued without the many factors i listed mate?

Most of the last 10000 years has been much warmer than today... with lower CO2 levels...!

How many times do I have to correct Tommy on this?

Another example of Tommy having a closeminded view on climate science

Do I need to post up the evidence again to show how again  he is wrong.

Is it even worth it, with someoe so badly in denial?

I posted the evidence... all you ever post is wafffle!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:I posted the evidence... all you ever post is wafffle!!!

Yes we understand your closed mind regards scientific facts as waffle

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

For once in your life, get a fucking proper education

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Beginning in the spring of 1315, cold weather and torrential rains decimated crops and livestock across Europe. Class warfare and political strife destabilized formerly prosperous countries as millions of people starved, setting the stage for the crises of the Late Middle Ages. According to reports, some desperate Europeans resorted to cannibalism during the so-called Great Famine, which persisted until the early 1320s.

https://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences

Which was only the start of the climate startng to cool

I find it interesting that you use historical sources here on science

Does that mean the cooling would have continued without the many factors i listed mate?

I used several sources. Most sources attribute the little ice age to volcanic activity.  The death of millions after the volcanic activity started the ice age may have had some influence on the length.  But they wouldn't have died without the volcanos starting the ice age long before Europeans began settling North and South America.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Which was only the start of the climate startng to cool

I find it interesting that you use historical sources here on science

Does that mean the cooling would have continued without the many factors i listed mate?

I used several sources. Most sources attribute the little ice age to volcanic activity.  The death of millions after the volcanic activity started the ice age may have had some influence on the length.  But they wouldn't have died without the volcanos starting the ice age long before Europeans began settling North and South America.

Actually you used history socurces, not anything scientific.

The scientific community put it down to a culmination of factors that caused this. As it happened over many centuries and there has been many volcanic eruptions of far bigger magnitute, outside this before. Both before and after this little ice age. When lends further weight to the fact.  That Volcano eruptions simple cannot be the sole factor that caused this. Otherwise we would have seen other little Ice ages, like after the Thera eruption in around 1500 BC or after the krakatoa eruption.

Maybe you can explain why we have not had then further mini ice ages after these eruptions?

Thor wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I posted the evidence... all you ever post is wafffle!!!

Yes we understand your closed mind regards scientific facts as waffle

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

For once in your life, get a fucking proper education

The gisp2 data is the best and most reliable evidence we have for temperatures in the northern hemisphere over the last 10000 years!!!


And is proven to be accurate as it is directly correlated to other cool and warm events we know about over history!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:


Yes we understand your closed mind regards scientific facts as waffle


For once in your life, get a fucking proper education

The gisp2 data is the best and most reliable evidence we have for temperatures in the northern hemisphere over the last 10000 years!!!


And is proven to be accurate as it is directly correlated to other cool and warm events we know about over history!!!

The above again shows why you are an idiot who cannot differentiate between local warming and global warming


All I am seeing is you prove yet again what a thick fuckwit you are

Again get a proper education

Now understand thius thread is not going to be spoilt yet again  with your stupidity

Get that into your thick head

This debate by you has been done to death and you are still are so stupidly closeminded

So enjoy talking to yourself dummy

Yeah... cos warm/cool periods only happen in one place didge, don't they...!?


You idiot!!!


The mini ice age and medieval and Roman warm periods are well documented in UK and most of Europe... and the same can be seen in the greenland ice core data!!!


Get a grip on reality you bell end!!!


The evidence is there in front of your eyes!!!

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


I used several sources. Most sources attribute the little ice age to volcanic activity.  The death of millions after the volcanic activity started the ice age may have had some influence on the length.  But they wouldn't have died without the volcanos starting the ice age long before Europeans began settling North and South America.

Actually you used history socurces, not anything scientific.

The scientific community put it down to a culmination of factors that caused this. As it happened over many centuries and there has been many volcanic eruptions of far bigger magnitute, outside this before. Both before and after this little ice age. When lends further weight to the fact.  That Volcano eruptions simple cannot be the sole factor that caused this. Otherwise we would have seen other little Ice ages, like after the Thera eruption in around 1500 BC or after the krakatoa eruption.

Maybe you can explain why we have not had then further mini ice ages after these eruptions?

To get the debate back on track

What I posted is part of the debate... as you can't claim the cause of one period of temperature without considering all the rest of known temperatures... and the last 10000 years is the best data we have on historical temps in the northern hemisphere!

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


I used several sources. Most sources attribute the little ice age to volcanic activity.  The death of millions after the volcanic activity started the ice age may have had some influence on the length.  But they wouldn't have died without the volcanos starting the ice age long before Europeans began settling North and South America.

Actually you used history socurces, not anything scientific.

The scientific community put it down to a culmination of factors that caused this. As it happened over many centuries and there has been many volcanic eruptions of far bigger magnitute, outside this before. Both before and after this little ice age. When lends further weight to the fact.  That Volcano eruptions simple cannot be the sole factor that caused this. Otherwise we would have seen other little Ice ages, like after the Thera eruption in around 1500 BC or after the krakatoa eruption.

Maybe you can explain why we have not had then further mini ice ages after these eruptions?

To get the debate back on track

Avoid the truth more like...

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


I used several sources. Most sources attribute the little ice age to volcanic activity.  The death of millions after the volcanic activity started the ice age may have had some influence on the length.  But they wouldn't have died without the volcanos starting the ice age long before Europeans began settling North and South America.

Actually you used history socurces, not anything scientific.

The scientific community put it down to a culmination of factors that caused this. As it happened over many centuries and there has been many volcanic eruptions of far bigger magnitute, outside this before. Both before and after this little ice age. When lends further weight to the fact.  That Volcano eruptions simple cannot be the sole factor that caused this. Otherwise we would have seen other little Ice ages, like after the Thera eruption in around 1500 BC or after the krakatoa eruption.

Maybe you can explain why we have not had then further mini ice ages after these eruptions?

To get the debate back on track

Avoiding the truth again...

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


I used several sources. Most sources attribute the little ice age to volcanic activity.  The death of millions after the volcanic activity started the ice age may have had some influence on the length.  But they wouldn't have died without the volcanos starting the ice age long before Europeans began settling North and South America.

Actually you used history socurces, not anything scientific.

The scientific community put it down to a culmination of factors that caused this. As it happened over many centuries and there has been many volcanic eruptions of far bigger magnitute, outside this before. Both before and after this little ice age. When lends further weight to the fact.  That Volcano eruptions simple cannot be the sole factor that caused this. Otherwise we would have seen other little Ice ages, like after the Thera eruption in around 1500 BC or after the krakatoa eruption.

Maybe you can explain why we have not had then further mini ice ages after these eruptions?

To get the debate back on track

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:


Yes we understand your closed mind regards scientific facts as waffle


For once in your life, get a fucking proper education

The gisp2 data is the best and most reliable evidence we have for temperatures in the northern hemisphere over the last 10000 years!!!

.................................................................

More pure bullshit from Tommy....

As he once again confuses local weather data with bigger climatic events..

Then uses bullshit data from irrelelevant Euro' fuckups to back his own idiotic fuckups.

Then finally buries himself by claiming that his fuckups somehow proves his bullshit claim that it was supposedly hotter down here 10,000 years ago..

Despite what the actual real evidence shows to the contrary; Tommy the anti-science twat knows better than all the world's scientists combined -- all hail Tommy the magnificent, self-declared "genius", with his confirmed I.Q. of 333, 176, 237 !!!

Maybe fleakeeper could show us any evidence of anything that is considered as being more reliable and accurate historical temp data...!!!???


But I bet he doesn't post anything at all...!!!


As usual!!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

The gisp2 data is the best and most reliable evidence we have for temperatures in the northern hemisphere over the last 10000 years!!!

.................................................................

More pure bullshit from Tommy....

As he once again confuses local weather data with bigger climatic events..

Then uses bullshit data from irrelelevant Euro' fuckups to back his own idiotic fuckups.

Then finally buries himself by claiming that his fuckups somehow proves his bullshit claim that it was supposedly hotter down here 10,000 years ago..

Despite what the actual real evidence shows to the contrary;  Tommy the anti-science twat knows better than all the world's scientists combined --  all hail Tommy the magnificent, self-declared "genius", with his confirmed I.Q. of 333, 176, 237   !!!

He is a complete fuckwit, that thinks localized tempretures, is the same as global

He has been down this stupid path countless times and he still get its wrong

So as he is such a fuckwit, I need to post this again in full

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming
Link to this page

What the science says...

This argument uses temperatures from the top of the Greenland ice sheet. This data ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. It also reflects regional Greenland warming, not global warming.

Climate Myth...

Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)

This argument is based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That’s a fatal flaw, before we even begin to examine the use of the ice core data. A single regional record cannot stand in for the global record — local variability will be higher than the global, plus we have evidence that Antarctic temperatures swing in the opposite direction to Arctic changes. Richard Alley discussed that in some detail at Dot Earth last year, and it’s well worth reading his comments. Easterbrook, however, is content to ignore someone who has worked in this field, and relies entirely on Greenland data to make his case.

Most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present. Figure 4 shows temperatures from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. With the exception of a brief warm period about 8,200 years ago, the entire period from 1,500 to 10,500 years ago was significantly warmer than present.

This is Easterbrook’s Fig 4:

It’s a graph he’s used before, in various forms, almost certainly copied and altered from the original (click image below to see source: the NOAA web page for Richard Alley’s 2000 paper The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, though DE credits it as “Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997″, misspelling Kurt Cuffey’s name in the process:

Easterbrook continues:

Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.

This is his Fig 5:

Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.

Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough — it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.
And so to an interesting question. What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855? Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007 (Box, Jason E., Lei Yang, David H. Bromwich, Le-Sheng Bai, 2009: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1). He was kind enough to supply me with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2. This is what the annual average temperature record looks like (click for bigger version):

I’ve added lines showing the average temperatures for the 1850s (blue) and the last 10 years (red), and the difference between those is a warming of 1.44ºC. I’ve also added the two most recent GISP2 temperature data points (for 1847 and 1855, red crosses). It’s obvious that the GRIP site is warmer than GISP2 (at Summit Camp). The difference is estimated to be 0.9ºC on the annual average (Box, pers comm).
Let’s have ago at reconstructing Easterbrook’s Fig 5, covering the last 10,000 years of GISP2 data. It looks like this (click for bigger version):

The GISP2 series — the red line — appears to be identical to Easterbrook’s version. The bottom black line shows his 1855 “present”, and it intersects the red line in the same places as his chart. I’ve added a grey line based on the +1.44ºC quantum calculated from the GRIP temperature data, and two blue crosses, which show the GISP2 site temperatures inferred from adjusted GRIP data for 1855 and 2009.
Two things are immediately apparent. If we make allowance for local warming over the last 155 years, Easterbrook’s claim that “most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. The two blue crosses on the chart show the GISP site temperatures (adjusted from GRIPdata) for 1855 and 2009. It’s clear there is a calibration issue between the long term proxy(based on ∂18O measurement) and recent direct measurement of temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. How that might be resolved is an interesting question, but not directly relevant to the point at issue — which is what Don Easterbrook is trying to show. Here’s his conclusion:

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list. The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age(Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It’s really much to do about nothing.

1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is false, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data.
The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.

See also: MT at Only In It For The Gold. My thanks to Richard Alley and Jason Box for their rapid response to my questions.
NOTE: This rebuttal is an edited version of a blog post first published by Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic.

Thor wrote:

Thor wrote:

Actually you used history socurces, not anything scientific.

The scientific community put it down to a culmination of factors that caused this. As it happened over many centuries and there has been many volcanic eruptions of far bigger magnitute, outside this before. Both before and after this little ice age. When lends further weight to the fact.  That Volcano eruptions simple cannot be the sole factor that caused this. Otherwise we would have seen other little Ice ages, like after the Thera eruption in around 1500 BC or after the krakatoa eruption.

Maybe you can explain why we have not had then further mini ice ages after these eruptions?

To get the debate back on track

Well, it's a historical event.

There were multiple eruptions, as opposed to one.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


To get the debate back on track

Well, it's a historical event.

There were multiple eruptions, as opposed to one.

So has there been in the past and present eruptions and far bigger than within this period

Hence where is the other mini ice ages?

This proves more than anything, it is a culmination of factors, that led to the mini ice age, which was also gradual over a few centuries

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, it's a historical event.

There were multiple eruptions, as opposed to one.

So has there been in the past and present eruptions and far bigger than within this period

Hence where is the other mini ice ages?

This proves more than anything, it is a culmination of factors, that led to the mini ice age, which was also gradual over a few centuries

Multiple.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


So has there been in the past and present eruptions and far bigger than within this period

Hence where is the other mini ice ages?

This proves more than anything, it is a culmination of factors, that led to the mini ice age, which was also gradual over a few centuries

Multiple.

We have around 60 volcanic eruptions per year

So where is the mini ice ages, both past and after the mini ice age?

Again before and after this period has seen some of the biggest eruptions

Is it not starting to click, that clearly other factors are also at play?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Multiple.

We have around 60 volcanic eruptions per year

So where is the mini ice ages, both past and after the mini ice age?

Again before and after this period has seen some of the biggest eruptions

Is it not starting to click, that clearly other factors are also at play?

Multiple large eruptions.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


We have around 60 volcanic eruptions per year

So where is the mini ice ages, both past and after the mini ice age?

Again before and after this period has seen some of the biggest eruptions

Is it not starting to click, that clearly other factors are also at play?

Multiple large eruptions.

Do you know the size of the Thera eruption?

Its 6 times bigger than krakatoa, where more eruptions happened in the past

What eruptions is bigger than both of these during the mini ice age?

So where is the mini ice agers before and after the mini ice age?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Multiple large eruptions.

Do you know the size of the Thera eruption?

Its 6 times bigger than krakatoa, where more eruptions happened in the past

What eruptions is bigger than both of these during the mini ice age?

So where is the mini ice agers before and after the mini ice age?

The planet has had numerous ice ages.

No doubt some were bigger than others. Most predate humans.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Do you know the size of the Thera eruption?

Its 6 times bigger than krakatoa, where more eruptions happened in the past

What eruptions is bigger than both of these during the mini ice age?

So where is the mini ice agers before and after the mini ice age?

The planet has had numerous ice ages.

No doubt some were bigger than others. Most predate humans.

Where were the ice ages, before and after the mini ice age, that had also many volcanic eruptions, even bigger eruptions.

If your view it is only down to volcanic eruptions, then we would be perpetually in ice ages.

You do realise that?

Hence is it starting to sink in yet?

Scientists already conclude there is multiple factors.

So not sure why you struggle with this

The lies and spin from skeptical science does not count...

Thought there was evidence of sudden freezing, in plants and ice cores, caused by volcanic dust in the atmosphere, causing the Arctic  ice to grow past the coast of  Green land and into the north sea, thawing and changing the salinity which in turn disrupts the warming current sending cool water back to the Arctic etc etc
Depends on how many or how large the eruptions were surely.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The planet has had numerous ice ages.

No doubt some were bigger than others. Most predate humans.

Where were the ice ages, before and after the mini ice age, that had also many volcanic eruptions, even bigger eruptions.

If your view it is only down to volcanic eruptions, then we would be perpetually in ice ages.

You do realise that?

Hence is it starting to sink in yet?

Scientists already conclude there is multiple factors.

So not sure why you struggle with this

You are talking shite didge...


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:


Where were the ice ages, before and after the mini ice age, that had also many volcanic eruptions, even bigger eruptions.

If your view it is only down to volcanic eruptions, then we would be perpetually in ice ages.

You do realise that?

Hence is it starting to sink in yet?

Scientists already conclude there is multiple factors.

So not sure why you struggle with this

You are talking shite didge...


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm

Am I?

Or is it that you cannot read an article as per usual?



Now dont you look a complete dummy again

Its also explaining about ice age cycles and a theory, now 6 years old

Just like this theory also

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161026081537.htm

Here are more theories on the cycle from the same scientifc journal

Oh and evidence from climate scientists is not lies, dummy

Tommy, look around you. Evidence is what you see and hear and smell and touch and feel. Everything else is hearsay aka someone else’s take on things.

Can you deny that the weather is changing?


And here’s my final, non-article, non-hearsay question:

Don’t you think that all the chemicals we use have an impact on the ozone?

eddie wrote:Tommy, look around you. Evidence is what you see and hear and smell and touch and feel. Everything else is hearsay aka someone else’s take on things.

Can you deny that the weather is changing?


And here’s my final, non-article, non-hearsay question:

Don’t you think that all the chemicals we use have an impact on the ozone?

Maybe I'm different from everybody else, but I can't imagine that people haven't noticed that we now are getting house flies and ladybugs in the winter months, when we never saw them before.

To notice that kind of climate change in your lifespan is alarming, if you understand how slowly the climate changed in the past.

Even climate change related to ancient mass extinction events happened 100, 1,000, etc. times slower than what is happening now.

eddie wrote:Tommy, look around you. Evidence is what you see and hear and smell and touch and feel. Everything else is hearsay aka someone else’s take on things.

Can you deny that the weather is changing?


And here’s my final, non-article, non-hearsay question:

Don’t you think that all the chemicals we use have an impact on the ozone?

Eddie... what you might see in your lifetime... is just the equivalent of a blink of the eye compared to the lifetime of the planet earth...


A few hundred years ago... people were saying... "cor, don't it feel colder than it used to be...!?'...


And they were right because it was warmer before it got colder...


Now people are saying... 'cor, don't it feel warmer than it used to be...!?'...


And they are right because it is now a bit warmer than it has been during the recent cold period...


But... the point I continually try to make on this subject... is that the long term normal for this planet... is a much wider range of stuff than any one person can see in one lifetime...!


There are variables and cycles and changes at play, that regularly occur over thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years...!!!


Have a look at the previous link I posted... and consider the variation in the orbit of the earth to the sun over the tens of thousands of years... and the variation in the earth axis too over thousands of years...


If you don't know anything about this... and think everything should be the same all the time... and you are surprised when things are sometimes different from what you think that it should be...


Then this is simply because you are wrong to think things should always be the same!!!


As you are completely ignorant of the bigger picture about earth orbit and distance from sun over 1000s of years!!!


You might as well look out the window at 12.00 midday... and then start shouting that the sky is falling in when you look out the window again at 12.00 midnight and it's all gone dark!!!

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

eddie wrote:Tommy, look around you. Evidence is what you see and hear and smell and touch and feel. Everything else is hearsay aka someone else’s take on things.

Can you deny that the weather is changing?


And here’s my final, non-article, non-hearsay question:

Don’t you think that all the chemicals we use have an impact on the ozone?

Maybe I'm different from everybody else, but I can't imagine that people haven't noticed that we now are getting house flies and ladybugs in the winter months, when we never saw them before.

To notice that kind of climate change in your lifespan is alarming, if you understand how slowly the climate changed in the past.

Even climate change related to ancient mass extinction events happened 100, 1,000, etc. times slower than what is happening now.

I've mentioned similar things before that I've noticed down here, over the years :

Trees flowering earlier than 'normal', sometimes twice in the same year;
Birds nesting earlier;
Bees swarming earlier, and over a shorter period;

Also :  Bushfires out of season (also being seen in California and southern Europe..);
Increased flooding, and heavier & earlier then 'normal'..


IF the long term upward 'warming trend' from the last ice had been advancing at the expected rate, the average global temp increases being witnessed now would not have been due for another  2,000 years or so --  so, effectively, over the last 300 years we have seen what would have been expected to take 1500 -->> 2000 years being compressed into about one-seventh of the time  !


The anti-science/pro-coal&oil dolts 'keep on keeping on' claiming that mankind having cleared 25% of the worlds forests over a few hundred years --  allied with greatly increased pollution over the past two centuries (esp. the 'greenhouse' gases..)  --  "can't possibly" have affected the planets climate.

And yet they expect us to listen to their idiotic drivel about volcanic eruptions and solar flares  ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm


Try reading about the normal changes that the planet has seen over thousands of year cycles...


And the giant sequoia trees in western USA didn't appear overnight...


They have been there for millions of years... and require local forest fires to occur so that they can reproduce and survive as a species!!!


Why do you think they have been around for so many millions of years, and evolved in such a way to require these forest fires to occur for their survival...!?


Unless... it is the long term NORMAL for that area of the planet to have the climate that is normal for there to be loads of local forest fires...!!!???

And as usual tommy's dumbfuckery excells further

What is happenning is not part of some previous cycle or has the earth seen such a tempreture rise as we are today, based off where actually humans are causing this .

The reality is that in the past all previous levels of tempretures can be explained by phases in the earths history, through disasters.

This disaters is being caused by humans and one thing is know about previous disasters.

That extinctions happen and this one is being created by humans

This is why Tommy is such a cretin, as if he thinks that is okay, then he is an idiot.

What is happenning today is unique. As its being caused by humans and we are that disaster to this planet, when we can make a change to the spiral of disaster that humans are casing.

You are a fucking embarressment Tommy

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm

Tommy Monk wrote:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm

That is a cycle, of Ice ages and is one of many explanations for why that cycle happens.

It does not explain what caused the mini ice age or that the mini ice age, is part of a cycle

Doh

I know exactly what it is that I posted...


And I'm still waiting for you to provide any conclusive proof of anything...

Tommy Monk wrote:I know exactly what it is that I posted...


And I'm still waiting for you to provide any conclusive proof of anything...

You clearly do not and avoid countles evidence

As it does not coform to your twisted view of science

Anyway, you are boring the fuck out of me with your stupidity

Laters