March Marks Yet Another Record In Global Heat (reuters.com) 158
According to the European Union, Earth has reached its warmest March on record, capping a 10-month streak in which every month set a new temperature record. Reuters reports: Each of the last 10 months ranked as the world's hottest on record, compared with the corresponding month in previous years, the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said in a monthly bulletin. The 12 months ending with March also ranked as the planet's hottest ever recorded 12-month period, C3S said. From April 2023 to March 2024, the global average temperature was 1.58 degrees Celsius above the average in the 1850-1900 pre-industrial period.
C3S' dataset goes back to 1940, which the scientists cross-checked with other data to confirm that last month was the hottest March since the pre-industrial period. Already, 2023 was the planet's hottest year in global records going back to 1850. El Nino peaked in December-January and is now weakening, which may help to break the hot streak toward the end of the year. But despite El Nino easing in March, the world's average sea surface temperature hit a record high, for any month on record, and marine air temperatures remained unusually high, C3S said. "The main driver of the warming is fossil fuel emissions," said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London's Grantham Institute. Failure to reduce these emissions will continue to drive the warming of the planet, resulting in more intense droughts, fires, heatwaves and heavy rainfall, Otto said.
C3S' dataset goes back to 1940, which the scientists cross-checked with other data to confirm that last month was the hottest March since the pre-industrial period. Already, 2023 was the planet's hottest year in global records going back to 1850. El Nino peaked in December-January and is now weakening, which may help to break the hot streak toward the end of the year. But despite El Nino easing in March, the world's average sea surface temperature hit a record high, for any month on record, and marine air temperatures remained unusually high, C3S said. "The main driver of the warming is fossil fuel emissions," said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London's Grantham Institute. Failure to reduce these emissions will continue to drive the warming of the planet, resulting in more intense droughts, fires, heatwaves and heavy rainfall, Otto said.
What should we do about it? Why care about it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd prefer hopeful stories on people working to address global warming than news about how things are getting worse. I'd rather read news reports like this one: https://www.theverge.com/2024/... [theverge.com]
One reason I like news about what is being done is that it isn't so depressing, reports about global warming getting worse is news but if there's no mention on efforts being done to address it then there's no good news to temper the bad. Another reason I'd prefer news on what is done about global warming is that I
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if only it didn't take decades to build them...
Re: (Score:2)
Younger folks who have grown up with schools teaching them that the world absolutely *WILL* end
The world is not going to end, and no, schools are not telling students that it is. They do, I expect, get an overview of what the greenhouse effect is, something our generation didn't get. (That is, if they listen in class, which half the students don't)
...Climate crisis is a perfect lever to pry people apart.
Nah, not even in the top ten list of levers being used to pry people apart.
We Are Having A Cooler Spring (Score:2, Interesting)
In south west Texas. Guess the heat moved somewhere else which is fine with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Same in CA!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it moved to Europe, we had temperatures like mid/end of may in central Europe during march first week of april!
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, the heat will return in the summer, with a vengeance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does the past have to do with today? I already know we have been sweating balls for years out here by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, because even if your local weather happens to be better, and you are somehow insulated from the wider costs that fall on things like food production, the other major effect of climate change is to make weather more extreme. Expect summers to get even hotter, to the point where they are dangerous to your health and you need to run the AC to stay alive.
Re:We Are Having A Cooler Spring (Score:4, Informative)
Are you actually? Because the post above yours just said Australia had one of the mildest summers the poster could remember, when it fact it was the 3rd warmest summer recorded.
Hint: You're not actually, and have no basis for your comment. It's only been spring for 3 weeks. The starting gun was fired and you declared the winner of the marathon by judging who was ahead in the frist mile. Incidentally 3 weeks into summer 2 years ago we declared it was the wettest summer on record... right before a record drought that nearly brought shipping in Europe to a standstill and kicked off a drinking water crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
This is southwest Texas. Spring starts in February here. By march we are sweating bullets. It's already second week of April and it was 57 last night with 82 high and wind. It is NEVER that cool here in April.
Okay ... (Score:2)
... ready to build nuclear plants then? A lot of them? Fast?
No? Just want to emote, use it for political fodder, and blame? Carry on then.
Re: (Score:2)
But there are conflicting viewpoints about their financial viability.
So not an emergency then. Got it.
global trade (Score:2)
Whatever. (Score:2)
There are three camps, and they are well established.
- Camp one has bought in, and for them this is another source of confirmation bias to toss on the pile.
- Camp two will not be convinced no matter what evidence is put in front of them.
- Camp three is not listening, and does not care.
So who is this noise intended for? Almost nobody is sitting on the sidelines waiting to be persuaded.
It is even more alarming than that (Score:4, Informative)
A 10 month streak of "hottest August ever recorded" is bad enough on its own, but the data is even crazier than that. For a period between early July and the end of December, all but 3 days were the hottest ever recorded (so "hottest Aug 10th", etc). The only 3 days in the latter half of 2023 that weren't the hottest ever were the 2nd hottest ever.
Ocean temperatures paint an ever worse picture, if that is even possible.
Re: interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
How you feel and what the data says are not related. That's why the scientific method is a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I can say is that I do remember Winters where we actually had snow, and up past the door so we couldn't leave the house through it.
This Winter, we saw snow fall, but it didn't stick around.
But hey, that's just one data point.
Re: (Score:2)
This Winter, we saw snow fall, but it didn't stick around.
This winter we also had hardly any snow. 3 years ago we had a shit ton of snow. Almost like it is variable or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, according to my wood pellets usage, this was a particularly COLD Winter...
Re: (Score:2)
Well it wasnt in other parts of Australia, pro tip anecdote is not data.
Re: (Score:2)
where you live is not representative of the entire world. Global data is
Conversely, global data is not representative of anywhere.
Re: interesting (Score:2)
It's representative of the planet we live on.
That's somewhere to me, as it's where I keep all my stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
When the ten hottest years on record are just "the last ten years", and practically every basic climate trend line is running one way or the other and every warning signal is playing the Sellafield criticality alarm... not so much.
Best part: CO2 begins impairing human intelligence and focus at around 650ppm... We've gone from 270 to 430 and it's rising faster than ever. Visit any poorly ventilated conference room in the afternoon if you want a preview of what's to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Visit any poorly ventilated conference room in the afternoon if you want a preview of what's to come.
I think you are on to something here, the ideas coming out of management meetings have been deteriorating steadily for a while now...
Re: (Score:2)
This is a boring discussion. Facts do not matter since it doesn't matter what you or I want. Humanity will not take action until it becomes 'real' by having massive amounts of people dying. The people making these decisions live in pure air conditioned comfort. The climate is just some shit people are talking about. It is hard to imagine what it feels like to freeze to death when your entire life has been spent in temperatures significantly above freezing. The only time extreme temperatures are felt are whe
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully it will last till I'm done with my stint on the earth...
I doubt the world, or even the USA will collapse before either you or I die.
After that, I'll be taking a dirt nap and won't really be in a position to give a fuck...
True. It sucks to care about the future and being completely incapable of altering it even the slightest bit. Deceit, lies, gerrymandering, etc have all contributed to power being concentrated into too few hands. And those hands can't care because they don't see the issue. Apparently, they can only see naked profit, but only when it is placed directly under their nose. Decrepit and senile hands.
Re: interesting (Score:2)
It's already affecting you. It's already raising food prices, raising fuel prices, producing more extreme weather events which raise the price of home insurance...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best part: CO2 begins impairing human intelligence and focus at around 650ppm... We've gone from 270 to 430 and it's rising faster than ever. Visit any poorly ventilated conference room in the afternoon if you want a preview of what's to come.
Source for that? Not that I doubt it, but I think it may even be worse than that.
Actually, *we don't know*, and I find that quite a mind-boggling elephant in the room.
Sitting in badly ventilated rooms is one thing. But to the best of my knowledge, there are no studies on the effects of long-term exposure (as in, whole life) to elevated CO2 levels of the human organism (nor *any* organism).
But hey, let's worry about the effects of solar panels or wind power plants on the 'readability' of landscapes.
Re: interesting (Score:2)
The "record" doesn't know what temperatures were thousands of years ago. We only began installing thermometers out in the open after "scientists" had nothing better to do than install thermometers everywhere. People in the old days only tracked temperatures in cities where they lived because they were not insane. As a city expands, it's normal that its temperature will rise. It has nothing to do with "global warming."
Also, you notice most if not all of these climate s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there are multiple methods of measuring temperature over the last several hundred thousand years, unless you believe the laws of chemistry magically changed since the invention of the steam engine.
Re: interesting (Score:2)
Enjoy kayaking through the antlantic ocean to improve the weather while normal people use gas-guzzling flight technology.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Since you're being a smooth brain, here is a handy graphic explaining the situation. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: interesting (Score:2)
We're using comic strips as a means of explaining global phenomena because there are so many people (on Slashdot, no less) who are incapable of comprehending anything more complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or did I misunderstood you completely?
And there I was thinking that the free exchange of thoughts and ideas implies that you can freely state your thoughts and ideas? Those are mine. And my thinking is that to pinpoint a (geologically or historically) short term trend, it is sufficient to look at a short time period. I don't know how the cl
Re: (Score:3)
We can access records dating back a few 1000 of years by virtue of trees and ice core drills. You don't exactly have to measure the temperature RIGHT NOW to know what temperature we had today. Environmental effects have an effect on, you guessed it, the environment. And depending on circumstances, this can be conserved for thousands of years.
Of course accuracy worsens with time passing and it will not be possible to narrow it down to a particular year. What is possible, though, is to provide a general view
Records [Re: interesting] (Score:2)
"the ten hottest years on record"
Which record? A record which doesn't record 99.99% of human existence.
Indeed, the temperature record includes only the part of human history we have temperature records for, and does not include the part of human history we don't have temperature records for.
I would have thought that was obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure are a lot of stupid trolls out today fighting for the benefits of cigarettes, leaded gasoline, pollution, and child pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
Science and climate hysteria should not be used in the same sentence
You're the first one in the thread who used "climate hysteria" in a sentence.
Are you trying to suggest that there's no scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that conclusion is due to hysteria instead of optics?
Or are you suggesting that the warming due to human activity, that is returning the earth's climate to one that no existent species has existed with, won't have much impact on biodiversity, human health or human infrastructure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I never understood the "follow the money" battle cry of the self proclaimed climate sceptics, when all the money spent world wide on climate research is dwarved by the monthly revenue of a single oil or coal company.
So, corrupt millionaires peddling climate change is somehow justified and valid, because corrupt billionaires peddling oil?
Uh huh. Tell me again why we shouldn’t follow the money.
Re: interesting (Score:2)
Climate science is not being pushed by a commercial agenda. The vast majority of climate scientists are publicly funded.
That's not to say that there aren't people making corrupt money off of attempts to fix the climate catastrophe, there are. But they are not driving the agenda, they are just opportunistically exploiting it. They are disgusting, to be sure, but their existence does not debunk the work of climate scientists.
Re: interesting (Score:2)
Are you aware that oil companies spend more on PR than the combined budgets of all global climate science teams?
Follow the money indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Prove the science and humans involved, are not corrupt first. Follow the money. That, is our âoemethodâ thing now.
I followed the money, and the trail of money led to Big Oil and their anti-AGW propaganda.
Now what?
Many sources of data [Re: interesting] (Score:3)
How you feel and what the data says are not related. That's why the scientific method is a thing.
And yet when I read about how a single source (C3S) is being referenced to drive discussions like this,
That's an artifact of Slashdot, and the headline-driven news ecology. It is indeed important that science is replicated by different groups, but in fact, multiple independent research groups are deriving the same data from different sources.
The primary sources for temperature information, other the Copernicus (EU) group linked in the article, are:
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): https://www.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]
NASA (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) https://data.giss.nasa.gov [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
And people are still convinced psychology is a science.
Psychology is a science. And that science will show why people often act like idiots, and that is backed by data.
Re: (Score:2)
parts of psychology are scientific study of behavior. much of it though is just speculation based on "theories" that no one even bothered to falsify because they aren't and mostly can't be, they are just convenient beliefs. notably, the dsm, the main tool for diagnosing psychological ailments is mainly an opinion piece put together by a reduced group with zero scientific backing, mostly based on political views and social norms. fun fact, it sometimes even works, but that still doesn't make it scientific. o
Re: interesting (Score:3)
Science involves peer review including replication.
Most of the time we can't replicate psych study results, when we even bother to try... Which is seldom.
Psychology may be a valid science, but you can't tell from applied psychology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:interesting (Score:4, Informative)
Ah. You must be one of those lucky buggers that live in one of the bits of Australia that isn't on this map [bom.gov.au]
Re: interesting (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish more people recognized this!
When people talk about "hottest summer" or whatever they are not talking about highest highs. They are talking about highest average. It's total energy content, not peak temperature, that is being discussed.
If the general population can't understand this, we need to be better as a people about basic education.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an impasse over the semantics of "hottest".
Sigourney Weaver in the Alien film series has stood the test of time. Fight me :)
The point being the hottest summer on record doesn't mean that same summer couldn't be described as 'mild'. Language is imprecise but the science is clear.
But yes, you'll see records being well and truly absolutely smashed when we do have a really "hot summer" and those extreme heat days with a heatwave over 40 degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We had like 3 days above 35 degrees the entire summer in Melbourne.
That's mildly warm for Australia.
Maybe the average lows are skewing the results but certainly not what you'd call a hot summer.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting (and not questioning the results), but Australia has had one of the mildest summers in a long long time. First summer I can ever remember where I only needed the air conditioner for a couple of days.
Australia just logged the 3rd warmest summer on record nationally. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/... [bom.gov.au] Keep your *opinion* backed with a complete and utter lack of data to yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
It can be both. Average temperatures, e.g. evenings and overnight being warmer on record but peak daytime highs being 'mild'.
As I said in an earlier comment, we had very few 'hot' days. Per your link, I live in the white part.
http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/nc... [bom.gov.au]
I'll leave you with a 'hot' Victorian summer, *that* was a heatwave:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Florida had it's coldest (most cold days) winter in decades too.
That is not how "coldest winter" works. You cannot cherry pick some days and come to a conclusion. You have to average all the hours of all the days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Did you notice that most of the data points are weather stations sitting in middle of cities who's heat islamd's of concrete have grown year over year for decades?
Twenty years ago there was a well-publicized attack on the climate data from a blog that claimed that the data was wrong because (some of) the temperature measurements were in inappropriate sites, but there was an independent project by another group that looked at the sites one by one and re-analyzed the data without any of the suspect sites... and got the same results.
You have to keep in mind that seven different groups on four continents do these temperature analyses, and to a large extent they're competing with each other. If you're claiming "scientists are stupid, they can't see when the data is bad," it's pretty hard to credit that nobody has noticed.
And, as AC mentions afterwards, there is also satellite data. (Satellite data doesn't actually measure temperature at ground level, it measures troposphere temperature, but it's an independent measurement.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Did you notice that most of the data points are weather stations sitting in middle of cities who's heat islamd's of concrete have grown year over year for decades?
Yes I did, but in their defence they are only in the middle of cities for a small fraction of a second. They couldn't be any longer than that when they move at 7.2km/s. Oh and only if you look in 2 dimensions. If you take altitude into account the weather stations are actually sitting 1300km above the cities.
Re: (Score:3)
The data is from satellites you numpty.
Hey, how dare you. We mustn't let actual data [copernicus.eu] and facts get in the way of telling a "narrative".
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok, to balance it out mine has been running since March.
On the other end of the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you are, but where I am, back when I was a kid, we had the heating running October to April. And we didn't exactly need an AC, we just went to sit in the basement for those 2 weeks when it was actually hot during the day to cool off.
Today, if my AC craps out, my flat bakes me at 116F/46C throughout July/August.
Re: (Score:2)
AC is electric and costs $$....heat , the little I need is gas, and pretty cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point being?
Re: (Score:2)
And you live where? And is that in your own immobile home, or an apartment?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'll help you out. It's the rate of change. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: On record. (Score:2, Troll)
The claim was not rate of change. The claim was warmest March on record. That claim is obviously and demonstrably false.
Re: On record. (Score:2)
Re: On record. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it was warmer when the dinosaurs were around herp derp.
But when the planet broke in half and the moon was formed the earth was molten herp derp.
Sure, and if human survival is not a relevant factor, there isn't really a problem.
Allow me to comment here using the words of one of the greatest American philosophers, George Carlin:
"[...}there is nothing wrong with the planet nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine the people are fucked! [...] The planet has been here four and a half billion years, we’ve been here what? 100,000? Maybe 200,000? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years. 200 years versus four and a half billion and we have the conceit to think that somehow, we’re a threat? That somehow, we’re going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us: been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drifts, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and aluminum cans are going to make a difference?
The planet isn’t going anywhere we are! We’re going away! Pack your shit folks! We’re going away and we won’t leave much of a trace either, thank God for that maybe a little styrofoam maybe little styrofoam. The planet will be here, we’ll be long gone; just another failed mutation; just another closed-end biological mistake; an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance."
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to reply to people who actually have the brain capacity to understand my comments.
It makes me feel like I'm productive.
Re: (Score:3)
No one claimed that climate change will destroy the planet. Or wipe out Life on Earth. It will affect humans. It will affect human living conditions. It will affect human civilisation. It will affect human housing, human harvests, human migration patterns.
Earth will happily spin around Sun for the next few billion years. Some kind of Life will evolve which can cope with the new conditions of Earth's surface. But it might include far less humans as
But it might include far less humans (Score:2)
A series of studies have demonstrated a significant increase in global plant growth due to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. A key study published in Nature Climate Change found that between a quarter and half of the Earth's vegetated lands have experienced notable greening over the past 35 years, largely attributable to rising CO2 levels. This greening effect represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent to an area twice the size of the cont
Re:But it might include far less humans (Score:5, Interesting)
Humans have added about 700 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the last 120 years. You can look up the yearly mining of coal, lignite and oil since 1900 until today to compare them to the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere, if you are not sure where this increase comes from. This is equivalent to 270 billion metric tons of pure Carbon. Your average plant contains about 15% carbon. So this amounts to about 1.6 trillion tons of plant mass, which you need to add to the world, just to offset the current increase. All harvests right now on the world amount to about 5 billion tons of plant mass per year. This amount you have to add would be equivalent to 300 years of world harvests, of which none can be used for human consumption, because you urgently need the carbon to stay sequestered.
Additionally, plants growing better in higher CO2 are mostly dicotyledons, while monocotyledons don't profiteer as much. There have been experiments where, depending on the CO2 levels, dicotyledons will suppress monocotyledons at higher CO2 levels, while at lower CO2 levels, monocotyledons outcompete the dicotyledons. Sadly, with the exception of the potato, most of our food providing crops are monocotyledons, like wheat, rice,bananas or corn. Dicotyledons give mostly fruits and some vegetables, but not the starch rich crops, which yield the highest harvests. The same goes for temperature: Higher temperatures are preferring dicotyledons, while moderate temperatures are better for monocotyledons. There is a reason why most food is grown away from the equator in the moderate climate zones, and why the most people are living there.
What you are doing with higher CO2 levels and higher average temperatures is basically killing off all our crops and forcing us to really fast find new, dicotyledon based food sources.
While I agree, that higher CO2 levels will increase plant growth in general, it will not increase the amount of food we can grow. For that to happen, we are planting the wrong crops.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists also recorded record human growth due to all the sugar in foods, doesn't mean that it is healthy to have that growth. CO2 to plants is much like sugar to humans, by itself not exactly healthy even if it does cause more growth.
Re: (Score:2)
If we would cut human CO2 emissions by say half and then stay at or below that level, the greening will allow CO2 levels in the the atmosphere to start reducing over time, as some of the deal plants will not completely rot away but the some of the carbon will end up back in the ground. But this correction mechanism is simply being massively overwhelmed by the amount of CO2 emissions growth that humans are generating.
Another correction mechanism that may at some point force CO2 levels to start reducing, is m
Re: (Score:2)
No one claimed that climate change will destroy the planet. Or wipe out Life on Earth.
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
No one claimed that climate change will destroy the planet. Or wipe out Life on Earth.
Well, there is a non-zero probability that the Earth could enter a runaway warming cycle and become another Venus, with surface temperatures exceeding 400C. The planet wouldn't be destroyed, but life would probably be wiped out. AFAIK we haven't found any life form that can survive above about 120C.
That seems unlikely, though, given that Earth's hottest phases so far (after the crust cooled, anyway) have been considerably cooler than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When human beings in their most modern form have prospered over 60,000 years or more?
Human beings in their most modern form have prospered for less than 500 years, not 60000. In fact 10000 years there were less than 1million humans on the entire planet. There's a reason the 17th century was called the "Age of Discovery". It's the point universally considered the start of human prosperity.
Incidentally in those 500 years we've shown that we are far more capable of influencing the planet than natural causes.
Re: (Score:2)
human beings in their most modern form have prospered over 60,000 years or more? In much, much warmer periods.
Yeah... I'd like to see some sort of numbers for that. Because the only thing I can find about that is some local warmth periods that had more in common with the effects of El Nino or similar phenomena.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have practiced agriculture for ~10000 years. It has certainly not been warmer than this in that time period. The last time it might have been this warm was about 125000 years ago. And we're just getting started.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only going to get worse.
Hey, look, you managed to say something that actually not only made sense but also coincides with reality!
Well done. Mommy is proud of you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" Huh? I don't think we need to bring the ability to believe the former alleged president into this.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, who let you out of the asylum?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no climate crisis, you brainwashed Slashdot enviro-wackjobs. The earth was considerably warmer during medieval times, and even warmer than that in ancient Roman times, 2 thousand years before humans had an industrial civilization.
There's a lot of arguments over the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman warm period among climate scientists, particularly different opinions of whether these were regional or global climate variations. It's not clear. Current thinking, based on climate proxy records, says that the warm period occurred at different times in different places on the Earth, and thus the MWP was regional rather than a global warming.
But in any case, we have now exceeded the MWP temperatures.
See that big glowing yellow ball in the sky? It's called the SUN. The activities of man are puny compared to the sun, the most influential factor, by far, on the ever changing climate.
Nobody suggests that the sun is not t