Annual Temperature Anomaly -- 1850-2019

[David P]

Why did the Yale researchers call for Zero Population Growth in 1970, when we were at only 4 billion?

Temperature Report for 2019 Berkeley Earth, a Calif-based non-profit research org, has been preparing independent analyses of global mean temp changes since 2013. The following is our report on global mean temp during 2019.

We conclude that 2019 was the second warmest year on Earth since 1850. The global mean temp in 2019 was colder than

2016, but warmer than every other year that has been directly measured. Consequently, 2016 remains the warmest year in the period of historical observations. Year-to-year rankings are likely to reflect short-term natural variability, but the overall pattern remains consistent with a long-term trend towards global warming.

Annual Temperature Anomaly -- 1850-2019 [chart]

[Chris Green]

Because even then there were too many of us?!

[newshound]

Yes, almost the warmest that it has been since the end of the little ice age. And this is news?

[Fredxx]

Some people would disagree with you and say CO2 levels were higher in

1900 than they are now.

[newshound]

So how come, Covid apart, we are now pretty much all better off and healthier than we were then.

I worried quite a lot about what "the experts" were saying in the 60's and early 70's. But, being a scientist, I am a great believer in data, and that shows unequivocally that they were wrong. I see no reason to be equally swayed by current predictions.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The cartoon for this is:

[Andrew]

Who is 'we' ?. There are now a couple of billion extra people who are neither healthier or better off. The internet has allowed terrorists and other nutcases to spread their poison more widely and there are far more displaced people than in the 70's because of war and poverty.

And it is now impossible for an FTB to get a mortgage to buy a 'doer upper' property and move up the property ladder. Most are now enforced renters.

They were right about the ozone hole, caused by refridgerants and aerosol propellants, and also about the destruction of Scandi pine forests by S02 emissions from UK power stations.

They were wrong about 'beating Cancer', a phrase that was bandied about back then. The Imperial Cancer Research Fund (as it was called then) paid £1 million for a miracle new 'cure' called Beta Interferon (also what it was called back then). Not much came of it. They didn't even know if what they got for their million quid was actually what they thought they were getting !.

[charles]

Wrong. The SO2 was coming in from Canada over the UK.

[Andrew]

The prevailing winds that the UK generally has, means our pollution heads out over Denmark and Norway. Canadian emissions might have added to it, but the UK was a significant source.

[Roger Hayter]

No-one with any knowledge of the subject has *ever* talked about "curing cancer" except as a deliberate lie to encourage ignorant people to contribute money. It is an intrinsically silly idea. Ditto Parkinson's disease and dementia. No doubt the marketing people would characterise the lie as an oversimplification.

[newshound]

Not true. There are fewer starving people now than in 1970, even though the population has nearly doubled. Life expectancy is better everywhere.

[charles]

not according to a freind who worked for tehnCEGB. The UK added no more than 10% to that coming in from across the Atlantic. There was a gigantic steel making plant which was the main source. I can recall serious acid rain problems in Galloway which can hardly been caused by UK sources.

[Andrew]

I must have been imagining the LiveAid concerts in 1984 then. And places like Darfur obviously don't exist.

[Vir Campestris]

Will you believe Wikipedia?

It's striking how few of those are caused by weather or other natural causes, rather than by war or similar human led problems.

Andy

[Tim Streater]

You are certainly imagining that the LiveAid Concerts did a blind bit of good.