2017 WAS the hottest on record.

by Andy Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:43 am

First topic message reminder :

And it has taken natural events such as el Nino into account.

No doubt. No controversy.

Just fact.

http://dailym.ai/2FQC3Fz

So Stench Skunk and Tommy can stick this up their arses.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:24 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Important to know the facts, to consider the accuracy of these facts, and also to consider the perspective & context etc...

And what I say about last 8000 years is true... check it out for yourself...!

Put up a graph showing different if you can...?

Hilarious

And I have put up graphs for you and you still cannot grasp them

You made an post before this showing even more how badly you are ignorant on science

So lets start with your first ignorance

When did records begin on tempretures?

Where are these graphs of temperatures over the last 8000 years then...!?

The graphs you posted only go back a few decades
to 1950!!!

lol!

by eddie Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:48 pm

I don’t know why.....but sometimes, it feels just like Groundhog Day on here

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:27 pm

eddie wrote:I don’t know why.....but sometimes, it feels just like Groundhog Day on here

Well Eddie... if you keep allowing Didge to hijack and ruin threads, as he has done here, then it'll carry on...!

by eddie Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:19 pm

How is answering your posts “hijacking the thread”?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:28 pm

eddie wrote:How is answering your posts “hijacking the thread”?

I had made 2 posts on this thread at the top of page 1... first was to Handy Andy, second was a reply to wolfie... then Didge arrived and started saying that I was an idiot, that I'd fukked up etc, when he started posting this...

Quotes of posts by Didge...

'Are you an idiot?'

'Wonder how long it will take for Tommy to realise what a dick he has been here.
Taking bets'

'What did you fuck up on?
Think'

I asked him to explain himself...

Then he posted 2 irrelevant graphs, not only being from a highly dubious source, but also only showing a view of the last 70 years, when I had clearly been talking about the last 8000 years!

I have consistently been asking him to explain himself... to no avail...!

He has been twisting and avoiding ever since... regular Didge bullshit included his favourite old classics, where he first starts waffling and falsely claiming that he has already answered any questions, and then ends with his accusations to others of failing to answer his questions...!

The only question I have asked Didge (on this thread), is for him to explain exactly what it was that I posted that he disagrees with (in either of my initial two posts)... and his reason/s why...!?

And I'm still waiting for a clear answer on this!!!

If Didge has been 'answering my posts', as you say... then why hasn't he yet answered the only question I've been asking him...!!!???

2 pages of bullshit later... and still no answer from him explaining WTF he is talking about!!!

That's what I call 'hijacking & ruining a thread'!!!

Have another read through thread and you will see what I'm talking about!!!

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:14 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe hand shandy can tell us when these records began...?

Compared to how long humans have been on the planet...?

And then maybe he could tell us how accurate and geographically widespread the measurements are now, compared to 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and 150 years ago...!?

And then maybe he can explain why scientific research has shown that over the majority of the last 8000 years, the temp has been warmer or as warm as it is now...!?

Didge wrote:
1) You do not know when they began, as I asked you and you gave me lots of bollocks

2) Shows you have no comprehension of how damaging CO2 levels have been in the past and how now we are creating them

3) See the graphs from Nasa I showed you

which you ignored

4) Showing again, how clueless you are. Nobody denies it has been warmer in the past and also devesatating to life. This time, ite being caused by humans

Maybe you need to go back to school, being as you clearly are as thick as shit Tommy

My questions were for Handy Andy, from the top of page 1... he has not answered any of them...

And neither have you with that above load of waffle!!!

P.S... your two graphs weren't from NASA either... they were 'illustrations' by 'Dana Nuccitelli'... chief bullshitter for the bullshit site 'skepticalscience.com'...!

lol!

by Andy Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:57 am

Given the option of believing the research and conclusions of the world's leading scientists and climatologists,against that of a drooling,sub normal special needs denier like Tommy Monkeybrains, it os a really simple decision.

99% of this forum will agree Tommy is Trolling.
The 1% is his chum.

by Syl Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:32 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Given the option of believing the research and conclusions of the world's leading scientists and climatologists,against that of a drooling,sub normal special needs denier like Tommy Monkeybrains, it os a really simple decision.

99% of this forum will agree Tommy is Trolling.
The 1% is his chum.

You can only speak for yourself not for 99% of posters here. Wink

by Vintage Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:34 pm

Scientists are just people, who can be convinced their ideas are right when later they are proven wrong, even massed ranks of them, then of course there is the question of funding. If ideas are not explained properly to the general public and if told the bald fact that the planet has heated up and its humans fault, when your particular area has in fact has been colder than normal, its not going to make sense to non scientists.

by 'Wolfie Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:48 pm

Vintage wrote:
Scientists are just people, who can be convinced their ideas are right when later they are proven wrong, even massed ranks of them, then of course there is the question of funding. If ideas are not explained properly to the general public and if told the bald fact that the planet has heated up and its humans fault, when your particular area has in fact has been colder than normal, its not going to make sense to non scientists.

Total bullshit...

How about you learn a little about scientific principles, rational thinking and empirical methodologies; then maybe you can contribute some intelligent comments, instead of simply adding more empty guff to the corporatist denialist line..

Genuine scientists don't claim to know everything, but rather are forever looking to the whys and wherefores, the hows and why nots -- they postulate hypothesis to explain observed phenomena and events and experiences, attempt to replicate results to support those ideas, and if disproven they reject those hypothesis and keep on searching for enough evidence to produce theories and laws and facts.

As for the "funding" aspect, that will always favour the polluters themselves -- the biggest single source of financing for the Climate Deniers' Circus comes from the Koch Brothers (often ranked each year as the second or third richest family in America, they are also the biggest single investors in US oil companies..), who have contributed $$hundreds of millions$$ to anti-climate, anti-science and anti-social/anti-labour propaganda causes over the last couple of decades..

The "funding" of the denialists by oil and mining corporations is several times higher than the total amounts being spent collectively on research and pollution reduction/correction efforts and reforrestation globally... Attacks against the messengers and activists simply show how desperate the polliters themselves are becoming, all to protect their money-grubbing bastardry; while Tommy and Smelly are only too happy to provide them with even more free propaganda..

Your warped and illogical comments only help to further the denialost propaganda cause, and add even more encouragement to the Tommy/Smelly anti-science brigade.

by nicko Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:29 pm

You put it so politely Wolfie, [as usual] Smile

by eddie Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:52 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Given the option of believing the research and conclusions of the world's leading scientists and climatologists,against that of a drooling,sub normal special needs denier like Tommy Monkeybrains, it os a really simple decision.

99% of this forum will agree Tommy is Trolling.
The 1% is his chum.

Do you realise that if Trump had said this, or any other RW politician had called somebody that, you’d have screamed in protest? As would the hypocrite who gave you the green.

Now, I don’t give a shit about the phrase if I’m entirely honest, but you normally would. Dependent on who says it obviously.

Which is why there’s a huge difference between you and I. You’re a pretendy fake nice person Andy, acting like your shit doesn’t stink because you didn’t vote tories or UKIP.

If you can’t work out why this has irritated me so much, perhaps I’ll be back later to tell you why. Or maybe I won’t, because...well.

by Vintage Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:54 pm

So, Andy, no scientist or group of scientists have every been proven to be mistaken or god forbid actually on the wrong track?

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:35 pm

Vintage wrote:Scientists are just people, who can be convinced their ideas are right when later they are proven wrong, even massed ranks of them, then of course there is the question of funding.

Green from me!

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Maybe we can get this thread back on track, and Handy Andy can answer these questions about his OP...?

Tommy Monk wrote:
Maybe hand shandy can tell us when these records began...?

Compared to how long humans have been on the planet...?

And then maybe he could tell us how accurate and geographically widespread the measurements are now, compared to 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and 150 years ago...!?

And then maybe he can explain why scientific research has shown that over the majority of the last 8000 years, the temp has been warmer or as warm as it is now...!?

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:13 am

Didge wrote:Going to help Tommy

Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
In terms of El Niño and solar temperature influences, 2017 thus far has been most similar to 2006, but 2017 has been 0.3°C hotter than 2006 as well.

Global average surface temperature data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

Tommy does not reckon these Tempreture details are from NASA

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 3489511464

That is why Tommy has from the start made himself redundent ffrom the debate

You have to have an IQ above 100 and Tommy clearly does not qualify

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:15 am

Vintage wrote:Scientists are just people, who can be convinced their ideas are right when later they are proven wrong, even massed ranks of them, then of course there is the question of funding. If ideas are not explained properly to the general public and if told the bald fact that the planet has heated up and its humans fault, when your particular area has in fact has been colder than normal, its not going to make sense to non scientists.

Convinced, based off 97% climate scientits coming to the same conclusions, using date and evidence?

Yes some scientists can be later proven wrong, but you need to prove they are wrong.

Which is the point, as you have failed to do so.

Hence its a complete copout to claim scientists are wrong when the onus here is on you to do that

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:16 am

Vintage wrote:So, Andy, no scientist or group of scientists have every been proven to be mistaken or god forbid actually on the wrong track?

Have they been proven wrong here?

Hence absurd reasoning

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:17 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe hand shandy can tell us when these records began...?

Compared to how long humans have been on the planet...?

And then maybe he could tell us how accurate and geographically widespread the measurements are now, compared to 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and 150 years ago...!?

And then maybe he can explain why scientific research has shown that over the majority of the last 8000 years, the temp has been warmer or as warm as it is now...!?

Didge wrote:
1) You do not know when they began, as I asked you and you gave me lots of bollocks

2) Shows you have no comprehension of how damaging CO2 levels have been in the past and how now we are creating them

3) See the graphs from Nasa I showed you

which you ignored

4) Showing again, how clueless you are. Nobody denies it has been warmer in the past and also devesatating to life. This time, ite being caused by humans

Maybe you need to go back to school, being as you clearly are as thick as shit Tommy

My questions were for Handy Andy, from the top of page 1... he has not answered any of them...

And neither have you with that above load of waffle!!!

P.S... your two graphs weren't from NASA either... they were 'illustrations' by 'Dana Nuccitelli'... chief bullshitter for the bullshit site 'skepticalscience.com'...!

I see the weasel is still running away friom facts and cannot answer my questions or points

Priceless

ha ha ha

lol!

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:24 am

So Tommy claims these sources are dubious?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/2017-2nd-hottest-year.html

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 3489511464

Where is his evidence they are dubious?

Some wackadoodle?

Best Tommy comes up with something better than a claim of dubious

With the first six months of 2017 in the books, average global surface temperatures so far this year are 0.94°C above the 1950–1980 average, according to NASA. That makes 2017 the second-hottest first six calendar months on record, behind only 2016.
That’s remarkable because 2017 hasn’t had the warming influence of an El Niño event. El Niños bring warm ocean water to the surface, temporarily causing average global surface temperatures to rise. 2016 – including the first six months of the year – was influenced by one of the strongest El Niño events on record.

Reality has debunked the ‘warming stopped’ myth

For a long time one of the favorite climate denier myths involved claiming that we hadn’t seen any global surface warming since 1998. That myth has fallen by the wayside since 2014, 2015, and 2016 each broke the global surface temperature records previously set in 2010 and 2005 (which were also both hotter than 1998). Yet the myth persisted for years because 1998 was anomalously hot due to the monster El Niño event that year, which meant that global temperatures weren’t much hotter than 1998 until 2014 to today.

Now the first six months of 2017 have been 0.3°C hotter than 1998, despite the former having no El Niño warming influence and the latter being amplified by a monster El Niño. In 1998, there was also more solar energy reaching Earth than there has been in 2017.

Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

In terms of El Niño and solar temperature influences, 2017 thus far has been most similar to 2006, but 2017 has been 0.3°C hotter than 2006 as well.

Global average surface temperature data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

No, Rick Perry, the oceans aren’t to blame

In a recent Senate committee hearing, Trump’s Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry said that he didn’t believe human carbon pollution is the primary control knob for the Earth’s climate (it is; hence the title of this NASA paper published in the journal Science in 2010), but instead placed most of the blame on “naturally occurring events – the warming and the cooling of our ocean waters.”

That’s a simple hypothesis to test. If global surface temperatures were rising due to an exchange of heat from ocean cycles, then as Perry noted, ocean temperatures would be alternatively warming and cooling. When oceans transferred heat to the surface, their temperatures would cool, and vice-versa. That’s simply not happening – measurements show that the oceans have steadily built up heat:

Global ocean heat content data for 0–2000 meters. Illustration: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information

Instead, every component of the Earth’s climate is warming. Surface air temperatures, lower atmospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, and sea levels are rising as ice around the globe melts. That’s a key signature not of an internal Earth cycle, but of an external influence – either an increase in incoming energy from the sun, or a decrease in outgoing energy, for example due to an increase in the heat-trapping greenhouse effect. And as we’ve established, there’s actually been a slight decrease in incoming solar energy.

The culprit is quite clearly human carbon pollution. That’s how the first six months of 2017, despite lacking solar or El Niño ocean warming, can be hotter than 1998, and 2006, and every year before 2016.

Click here to read the rest

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:38 am

Best Tommy listen to this Climate scientist educate some dummy Council prepresentive

Guess what site she tells him to look up?

lol!

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:06 am

Didge wrote:
Didge wrote:Going to help Tommy

Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
In terms of El Niño and solar temperature influences, 2017 thus far has been most similar to 2006, but 2017 has been 0.3°C hotter than 2006 as well.

Global average surface temperature data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

Tommy does not reckon these Tempreture details are from NASA

That is why Tommy has from the start made himself redundent ffrom the debate

You have to have an IQ above 100 and Tommy clearly does not qualify

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

The graph is not from NASA... it is from your dodgy skepticalscience web site... created by it's editor Dana Nuccitelli...

And besides that... I said something about the last 8000 years... your graphs don't even show the last100 years!!!

So... I don't know why you posted them...!?

???

Maybe you should try answering WTF are you going on about...!?

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:13 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

Tommy does not reckon these Tempreture details are from NASA

That is why Tommy has from the start made himself redundent ffrom the debate

You have to have an IQ above 100 and Tommy clearly does not qualify

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

The graph is not from NASA... it is from your dodgy skepticalscience web site... created by it's editor Dana Nuccitelli...

And besides that... I said something about the last 8000 years... your graphs don't even show the last100 years!!!

So... I don't know why you posted them...!?

???

Maybe you should try answering WTF are you going on about...!?

Its still data collected from NASA

Doh

Oh dear

So you dont know why you are clueless on this.

What did I already say about the devastation before in the past with claimate change?

I mean the best thing you can do is go to the site and educate yourself on climate in the past

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

The worst thing here is the realty here.

Already more and more people suffer from higher levels of CO'2

So lets do the reality here. If I and the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong, (which based on the mass evidence, shows they are right) and we looked to protect our planet from less CO'2. Then people are going to be healthier. There would be no bad reprecussions from doing so.

However, if we listen to you and you are wrong, where we do nothing, the earth is fucked.

Hence the stupidity of your arguments

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:18 am

Oh and by the way, its actually from the Guardian.

Showing again you fucked up

Hence why I posted it in full and you never botherd to go to the link at the bottom, if you did, you would have gone here

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/31/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-thanks-to-global-warming

This proves you never look at any evidence

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:28 am

Still no answers to any of my questions... and still no explanation as to what I posted that you think is wrong, and why...!?

Oh dear...!

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:32 am

Didge wrote:
Best Tommy listen to this Climate scientist educate some dummy Council prepresentive

Guess what site she tells him to look up?

Following that video, is one showing Prof. Bryan Cox demolishing former One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts's conspiracy claims against climate change science...

Malcolm Roberts is akin to taking our resident anti-science denialist idiots, the likes of Tommy, Smelly and vintage and rolling them into one..

The "One Nation" fringe loon party can be considered the Oz version of a devil spawn offspring between Nigel Farage and the BNP !

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:33 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Still no answers to any of my questions... and still no explanation as to what I posted that you think is wrong, and why...!?

Oh dear...!

Its very simple.

Take off your blinkers and learn

The information is all there and here is to prempt your claim

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

Laughing

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:37 am

Didge wrote:Oh and by the way, its actually from the Guardian.

Showing again you fucked up

Hence why I posted it in full and you never botherd to go to the link at the bottom, if you did, you would have gone here

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/31/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-thanks-to-global-warming

This proves you never look at any evidence

What the fuck are you talking about now...!!!???

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:41 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:Oh and by the way, its actually from the Guardian.

Showing again you fucked up

Hence why I posted it in full and you never botherd to go to the link at the bottom, if you did, you would have gone here

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/31/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-thanks-to-global-warming

This proves you never look at any evidence

What the fuck are you talking about now...!!!???

Someone is looking very silly

You claimed the graphs came from skeptical science.

The graphs were drawn from data by NASA and posted in the Guardian

He writes for both

Like i say, you always fuck up, but the article was from the Guardian

I see after posting evidence againt to prove your ignorance, you continue to be in denial

lol!

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:43 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Didge wrote:
Best Tommy listen to this Climate scientist educate some dummy Council prepresentive

Guess what site she tells him to look up?

Following that video, is one showing Prof. Bryan Cox demolishing former One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts's conspiracy claims against climate change science...

Malcolm Roberts is akin to taking our resident anti-science denialist idiots, the likes of Tommy, Smelly and vintage and rolling them into one..

The "One Nation" fringe loon party can be considered the Oz version of a devil spawn offspring between Nigel Farage and the BNP !

You mean this mate

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:45 am

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Still no answers to any of my questions... and still no explanation as to what I posted that you think is wrong, and why...!?

Oh dear...!

Its very simple.

Take off your blinkers and learn

The information is all there and here is to prempt your claim

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

No answer from Tommy yet

lol!

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:47 am

Here is more poor skepitical claims made by people like you Tommy, easily shown flawed, poor and wrong

Please take your time reading, it may help you

A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age
CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
CO2 is just a trace gas
CO2 is not a pollutant
CO2 measurements are suspect
It's not urgent
It's too hard
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
There's no empirical evidence
UAH atmospheric temperatures prove climate models and/or surface temperature data sets are wrong
Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
We're heading into an ice age

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:51 am

Well this was fun

I have posted enough here for people to research themselves and there is lots of links to evidence from the sources

If Tommy wants to still be in denial

Let him, as thankfully, he is never going to make the important decisions to help save our planet

Night everyone

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:53 am

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Still no answers to any of my questions... and still no explanation as to what I posted that you think is wrong, and why...!?

Oh dear...!

Its very simple.

Take off your blinkers and learn

The information is all there and here is to prempt your claim

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

skepticalscience.com is full of bullshit... it is not a source for facts/truth...!!!

Your graphs state - "Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli"

Do you know who Dana Nuccitelli is...!?

He is the editor of skepticalscience.com... and a liar who has been caught out bullshitting about 'global warming' many many times!!!

Now... are you going to answer any of my questions...!!!???

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:06 am

Quote Didge...

"See the graphs from Nasa I showed you"

lol!

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:20 am

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

What the fuck are you talking about now...!!!???

Someone is looking very silly

You claimed the graphs came from skeptical science.

The graphs were drawn from data by NASA and posted in the Guardian

He writes for both

Like i say, you always fuck up, but the article was from the Guardian

I see after posting evidence againt to prove your ignorance, you continue to be in denial

This is the caption from one of the two graphs you posted...

"Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli"

WTF has that got to do with NASA...!?

And WTF has it got to do with the last 8000 years, that I was talking about...!?

You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are posting!!!

lol!

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:58 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

Its very simple.

Take off your blinkers and learn

The information is all there and here is to prempt your claim

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

skepticalscience.com is full of bullshit... it is not a source for facts/truth...!!!

Your graphs state - "Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli"

Do you know who Dana Nuccitelli is...!?

He is the editor of skepticalscience.com... and a liar who has been caught out bullshitting about 'global warming' many many times!!!

Now... are you going to answer any of my questions...!!!???

PMSL

So Tommy defense accusations about one writer who writes for the Guardian and this website

Nothing to refute his facts

One moment

lol!

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:00 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:

Someone is looking very silly

You claimed the graphs came from skeptical science.

The graphs were drawn from data by NASA and posted in the Guardian

He writes for both

Like i say, you always fuck up, but the article was from the Guardian

I see after posting evidence againt to prove your ignorance, you continue to be in denial

This is the caption from one of the two graphs you posted...

"Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli"

WTF has that got to do with NASA...!?

And WTF has it got to do with the last 8000 years, that I was talking about...!?

You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are posting!!!

And the other is from NASA data

Razz

You never watched this did you tommy or read the link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGEjfUHPVcE

If you did, you would see how dumb you are

This is why people do not take you seriously on science Tommy

You just proved emphatically how dumb you are

Now refute the evidence. otherwise run along, as accusations do not hold water

Razz

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:01 am

Didge wrote:
Didge wrote:Going to help Tommy

Total solar irradiance data (red) and linear trend (orange) since 1950 from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Solar Irradiance Data Center at the University of Colorado. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
In terms of El Niño and solar temperature influences, 2017 thus far has been most similar to 2006, but 2017 has been 0.3°C hotter than 2006 as well.

Global average surface temperature data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

Tommy does not reckon these Tempreture details are from NASA

That is why Tommy has from the start made himself redundent ffrom the debate

You have to have an IQ above 100 and Tommy clearly does not qualify

by Guest Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:10 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

To again Tommy's only argument is to try to discredit scientists and not the evidenced they present.

Priceless

Laughing

He even wanted to know about the last 8,000 years.

I gave him this info and he is still doing this

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 Z

by Vintage Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:48 pm

You don't need to be a denier of Climate change to question what is being said. Many are just not sure that humans are playing such a large part in it and that by taxing vehicles, usually at the expense of poorer people, who if they have a vehicle its going to be old, while celebs and the rich folks jet all over the world and turning off your standby on your tv is going to save the planet. I'm not saying such things won't help in the long run and could lessen the effects, although with the population of the world growing at such a rate things can only get worse. Climate change will happen with or without us, worse with us contributing its true but there's nothing humans can do to actually stop it except maybe totally vanish off the face of the earth right now, although it'll still take a while for things to adjust even then.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:06 pm

The goddard institute has been accused of fiddling the figures... and skepticalscience.com is not a source for facts...

And still no answers to any of my questions... or explanation as to what Didge is claiming I said that was wrong...

Oh dear...!

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:59 pm

Maybe I can help Didge with a temperature graph for the last 10000 years...

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 Gisp-last-10000-new

And an interesting read here...

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:08 pm

From the article...

The graph of temperature from the ice core for the last 10,000 years (the current interglacial period) shows that Greenland is now colder than for most of that period (vertical scale in degrees C below zero). We can see the Medieval Warm Period 800 to 1,000 years ago was not particularly warm, and the Little Ice Age 150 to 650 years ago was one of the longest sustained cold periods during this interglacial. We are now recovering from this abnormal cold period, and the recovery started long before anthropogenic greenhouse gases were produced in any quantity. The curved trend line in green shows that we have been experiencing declining temperatures for the past 3,000 years, and are likely to be heading down toward the next ice age. Temperatures are only considered to be increasing if viewed for the last 150 years, from 1850 onward, which is roughly when thermometers began collecting global data, and is also the period of time the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has chosen for its review. The red portion of the curve is the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The amount of 20th century warming is unknown, since it was recently revealed that unknown portions of the international temperature databases have been tampered with, and the amount and extent of the tampering has not been publicly documented. It is likely that some warming has continued into the 20th century, but it is also likely that the amount of warming is not as great as the 0.6 degrees C that the global warming advocates would lead us to believe.

Our current warming is well within natural variation, and in view of the general decline in temperatures during the last half of this interglacial, is probably beneficial for mankind and most plants and animals. The graph clearly shows the Minoan Warming (about 3200 years ago), the Roman Warming (about 2000 years ago), and the Medieval Warm Period (about 900 years ago). Great advances in government, art, architecture, and science were made during these warmer times.

This also answers another of my questions about when the "records began" in the OP claim...!!!

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:24 pm

From the article above...

'...international temperature databases have been tampered with...'

More about that here...

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

Oh dear...!!!

lol!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:13 am

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:51 am

Vintage wrote:You don't need to be a denier of Climate change to question what is being said. Many are just not sure that humans are playing such a large part in it and that by taxing vehicles, usually at the expense of poorer people, who if they have a vehicle its going to be old, while celebs and the rich folks jet all over the world and turning off your standby on your tv is going to save the planet. I'm not saying such things won't help in the long run and could lessen the effects, although with the population of the world growing at such a rate things can only get worse. Climate change will happen with or without us, worse with us contributing its true but there's nothing humans can do to actually stop it except maybe totally vanish off the face of the earth right now, although it'll still take a while for things to adjust even then.

Nobody said you cannot question the evidence, but you would be very stupid to not try to help look after the planet. That is just a no brainer.

Climate change will happen, but its about looking to help stem that timeline, unless you do not give a fuck for others

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:52 am

Tommy Monk wrote:The goddard institute has been accused of fiddling the figures... and skepticalscience.com is not a source for facts...

And still no answers to any of my questions... or explanation as to what Didge is claiming I said that was wrong...

Oh dear...!

Really, because some weasel claims so?

PMLS, you need to stop embarressing yourself here

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:54 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe I can help Didge with a temperature graph for the last 10000 years...

And an interesting read here...

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

Now how thick is Tommy and it proves he does not even read the evidence presented

Here from the link I posted earliert

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:
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 Easterbrook_fig41

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:
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 Alley2000

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 Alley2000

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:
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 Easterbrook_fig5

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):
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 GRIPtempBox480

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 GRIPtempBox480

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):
2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 GISP210k480

2017 WAS the hottest on record. - Page 3 GISP210k480

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.
Intermediate rebuttal written by Gareth

Update August 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

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

by Guest Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:59 am

More links to educate the weasel Laughing

2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells
Al Gore got it wrong
Antarctica is gaining ice
Arctic sea ice loss in the 1940s was similar to today's
Arctic was warmer in 1940
Climate's changed before
Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
CO2 is not a pollutant
CO2 lags temperature
DMI show cooling Arctic
Glaciers are growing
Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass
Greenland ice sheet won't collapse
Greenland is gaining ice
Greenland was green
Ice isn't melting
Ice Sheet losses are overestimated
It's a 1500 year cycle
It's not bad
It's not happening
It's not urgent
Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Northwest passage has been navigated in the past
Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
Underground temperatures control climate
We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
We're heading into an ice age

by Sponsored content