Think Texas is hot now? Wait 85 years

The New York Times ran a few depressing maps over the weekend that show how summer temperatures will be affected across the United States if nothing is done to slow or reverse the effects of climate change.

Between 1991 and 2010, Dallas saw an average of 44 days with high temperatures of 95 degrees or more. By 85 years from now, we’ll get about 133 a year. That’s more than one-third of the year.

And most of those days — 98 — will reach triple-digit heat.

If the projections hold, hot summers will extend much farther north in the U.S. than they do now. Even places like Minneapolis and Chicago, which get zero 100-degrees days now will have dozens each year by 2100.

http://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2016/08/by-2100-dallas-will-see-98-100-degree-days-each-year/

And my mother still wonders why I don't want kids ...

Because your selfish? and have a dog?

nicko wrote:Because your selfish?    and have a dog?

No, because I don't want to bring people into the world to suffer the catastrophe of global warming.

Why is he selfish because he doesn't want kids?

1991-2010 average

Days above 100°F

0-5     5-10     10-25     25-50     50+


By 2060

Days above 100°F

0-5     5-10    10-25    25-50    50+


By 2100

Days above 100°F

0-5  5-10   10-25    25-50    50+
 

Well, this is an eye opener! 

And for those that want to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to accept the foreboding long range predictions - changing the farming - types of crops - sustainable grass lands that we use to plant our grains and feed our farm to table market foods on ...won't have many option at their disposal if they don't start making some changes NOW!

I can see, just for the interior basin region that I live in; the central plains - home of the long blue stem grasses that we use for range feed cattle --- they won't survive that type of heat cycles and the aggressive weeds and cedars trees/shrubs will become the 'new normal' for the landscape!
Out with the BEEF Industry and increase with the sheep and goat herds; that's about the only type that can survive that extreme heat and lousy scorched earth - lower protein type of grazing!  

Perhaps terrace farming in the mountain regions will become the locations for crops/grains/vegetable farming ...but not on the huge acres that we see laid out in our tillable acres now. 

I'm wondering what crops would survive that heat?

eddie wrote:I'm wondering what crops would survive that heat?

There are some species of edible cacti ... maybe chilis ... not much else. And the yield would probably be horrible.

eddie wrote:I'm wondering what crops would survive that heat?

Not many ...most of the 'GRAIN' type of crops have a germination period for cool - moist soil and then warming earth to germinate and not extreme temps while the stocks are growing ...hence the reason that the corn is planted early SPRING and harvested in Mid July in my region. But this years - far too wet - far too much moisture content in the corn and much of it is going to MOLD!

Wheat is planted in the fall - lays dormant over winter and comes up early spring for green growth right at first thaw - harvest is early - around 4th of July. Then Corn - then Milo & Soybeans in October; in between it's cutting Timothy/Tall Blue Stem grasses for baling hay or alfalfa for baling also. 
This year was a 'RARE' year and hay has been cut and baled 4th cutting and alfalfa 3rd cutting and the bales have been heavy with full leafed heads - supreme crop for feeding but sadly the moisture content has been very high and there have been numerous fires in barn storage places due to that high heat content and people rushing to story their bales before the grass & alfalfa was cured enough to bale safely. 

My feed lot neighbor has set his huge 1500# round bale Quonset barn on fire twice in the 16years I've lived here from rushing to put up his baled grasses. 

I think we could do without wheat and be healthier anyway so no great loss - but it's not looking good for much else?

Edible cacti huh? I would like to try that.

eddie wrote:Edible cacti huh? I would like to try that.

Get a bottle of Tequila. It's pure blue agave.

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

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Edible cacti huh? I would like to try that.

Get a bottle of Tequila.  It's pure blue agave.

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

Tequila gets me in to trouble Quill......

4EVER2 wrote:

1991-2010 average

Days above 100°F

0-5     5-10     10-25     25-50     50+


By 2060

Days above 100°F

0-5     5-10    10-25    25-50    50+


By 2100

Days above 100°F

0-5  5-10   10-25    25-50    50+
 

Well, this is an eye opener! 

And for those that want to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to accept the foreboding long range predictions - changing the farming - types of crops - sustainable grass lands that we use to plant our grains and feed our farm to table market foods on ...won't have many option at their disposal if they don't start making some changes NOW!

I can see, just for the interior basin region that I live in; the central plains - home of the long blue stem grasses that we use for range feed cattle --- they won't survive that type of heat cycles and the aggressive weeds and cedars trees/shrubs will become the 'new normal' for the landscape!
Out with the BEEF Industry and increase with the sheep and goat herds; that's about the only type that can survive that extreme heat and lousy scorched earth - lower protein type of grazing!  

Perhaps terrace farming in the mountain regions will become the locations for crops/grains/vegetable farming ...but not on the huge acres that we see laid out in our tillable acres now. 

What a load of bollocks!!!

Tommykins Stated > What a load of bollocks!!!

   Oh, hail to the KING of the 'one line - regurgitated replies' ...keeping those handy just solves all of your inability to read - inability to respond to the topic - inability to THINK! 

Why, bother little child; you don't enhance the thread - can't learn from the recent data like the REST OF US ...you're just willfully and blissfully SOS and seem to enjoy your stupefaction! 

SO WHY BOTHER TO EVEN POST  

Recent data...!!!???


I give you recent factual data and you call me a loon... then you post up bullshit predictions for 50 and 100 years in the future!!!



Give us the lottery numbers this weekend while you're at it!!!???

Hey, dip-shit ...you've done nothing on this topic but posted up your stellar 'Pat Answer' of  > > > "BULLOCKS" 




BTW ...so much wasted bandwidth and pulling in a article from 2013 just because you like the pretty photos' is not even close to a - bring in a "CURRENT" rebuttal   

We should just all listen to Tommy, he's obviously smarter than all the climate scientists who worked on these reports.

Ben Reilly wrote:We should just all listen to Tommy, he's obviously smarter than all the climate scientists who worked on these reports.

INDEED ...  
Even though the DUDE can't read - can't comprehend and will brag that if we don't respond then 'he's won the day!'  

Well it make him stop trashing the topic's or this is just a subterfuge for his enjoyment?

Tommy, I've no idea why you think climate change is bollocks. Even taking away what scientists predict (and I'm no blind science-follower!) you can see the difference in our weather system with your very own eyes and inbuilt temperature gage!

I have shown a total temp rise over last 100 years to be 0.7 degrees... and only a change of 0.06 degrees over last 20 years...


I have said this is a direct correlation with increased solar activity over this time... and Ben even posted up a picture graph that confirmed this!!!


But you idiots still can't face these simple facts!!!


But prefer to believe the bullshit!!!


And you call me a loon...!!!???

I don't tend to call people loons simply because they question and don't follow the crowd.

Better a loon than a sheeple.

My reply was to the others eddie.


Solar activity has increased over the last 100 years... and it's got a little bit warmer... 0.7 degrees centigrade to be precise...


So how am I denying anything?


I am confirming what has happened and why.

TOMMY is Newsfix's prime "sheeple"...

One Only Has To Watch how easily he is led by the nose, by his beloved Big Business/Big Oil/Big Pharma' masters and their denialist propaganda..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

TOMMY is Newsfix's prime "sheeple"...

One Only Has To Watch how easily he is led by the nose,  by his beloved Big Business/Big Oil/Big Pharma' masters and their denialist propaganda..

WHY are you so jealous of and negative towards white forum posters, Wolfie  ???

Even though the figures are confirmed by major reputable sources... such as nasa... the idiots still believe the bullshit...

In 85 yrs .Texas could be covered in a mile of ice!

Over here they can't tell you 100% what the weather will be like the day after tomorrow.

Just to remind Tommy, from his favourite source

N A S A     




Climate change: How do we know?



This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO₂ has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.¹


Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.² Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.³

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

---

Sea level rise

• 
  Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.⁴
  Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise
  

+ EXPAND

---

Global temperature rise

• 
  All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.⁵ Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.⁶ Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.⁷
  

+ EXPAND

---

Warming oceans

• 
  The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.⁸
  

+ EXPAND

---

Shrinking ice sheets

• 
  The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
  Image: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet
  

+ EXPAND

---

Declining Arctic sea ice

• 
  Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.⁹
  Image: Visualization of the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum
  

+ EXPAND

---

Glacial retreat

• 
  Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.¹⁰ 
  Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.
  

+ EXPAND

---

Extreme events

• 
  The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.¹¹
  

+ EXPAND

---

Ocean acidification

• 
  Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.^12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.^14,15
  

+ EXPAND

---

Decreased snow cover

• 
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.¹⁶
  

+ EXPAND

---

References

[list=footnotes]
[*]IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
[*]In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
[*]National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
[*]Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
[*]https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
[*]T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
[*]I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
[*]Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
[*]L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
[*]National Snow and Ice Data Center
World Glacier Monitoring Service
[*]http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html
[*]http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
[*]http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
[*]C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
[*]Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
[*]National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
[/list]

<sup>http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 

i



Tommy doesn't seem to get that it only takes a rise of about 4 degrees to wipe out civilisation on Earth and 2 degrees to make life nearly unlivable in many areas.</sup>

Tommy Monk wrote:Even though the figures are confirmed by major reputable sources... such as nasa... the idiots still believe the bullshit...

   Brilliant - your brilliance shines through like a ...well, like a light bulb that burnt out! 
You can't grasp that NASA is updating their technology yearly - that NASA is finding better methods of studying the rapidly changing 'NEW ICE' vs 'OLD ICE' and that NASA/NOAA supplies most of the data for these sights/sciences that write the very articles that you in your brightness are calling "BOLLOCKS or BULLSHIT"

Science
New Study Links Weather Extremes to Global Warming
By JUSTIN GILLISAPRIL 27, 2015
    
The moderate global warming that has already occurred as a result of human emissions has quadrupled the frequency of certain heat extremes since the Industrial Revolution, scientists reported Monday, and they warned that a failure to bring greenhouse gases under control could eventually lead to a 62-fold increase in such heat blasts.
The planetary warming has had a more moderate effect on intense rainstorms, the scientists said, driving up their frequency by 22 percent since the 19th century. Yet such heavy rains could more than double later this century if emissions continue at a high level, they said.
“People can argue that we had these kinds of extremes well before human influence on the climate — we had them centuries ago,” said Erich M. Fischer, lead author of a study published Monday by the journal Nature Climate Change. “And that’s correct. But the odds have changed, and we get more of them.”
The study by Dr. Fischer and his colleague Reto Knutti, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is not the first to attribute large-scale changes in extreme weather to human influence on the climate. But it is among the first to forecast, on a global scale, how those extremes might change with continued global warming.
The question is important because while a gradual increase in average temperatures can have profound ecological consequences, it is weather extremes that have the greatest effect on human society. A 1995 heat wave in Chicago killed hundreds of people, and a 2003 heat wave in Europe killed an estimated 70,000.
Scientists believe both were made more likely by the human emissions that are warming the planet, and heat on that scale will become commonplace if emissions are allowed to continue unabated. For now, though, such heat extremes — Chicago temperatures were near or above 100 degrees for four days running that July — are still rare, which makes them difficult to study in a statistical sense.
For their paper, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Knutti focused on more common heat and precipitation extremes. Using computer analyses of what the climate would be like if the Industrial Revolution had never happened, they focused on the sort of weather extremes that would be likely to occur in any given location on the earth about once in 1,000 days, or a little less than three years.  

Corn in Belleville, Wisc. has been infected with a fungus, due to heat and drought. Credit Darren Hauck/Reuters       
What constitutes a one-in-1,000-day extreme varies from place to place; after all, a hot day in North Dakota might seem pretty routine in Texas. But such extremes can be damaging wherever they occur — especially hot days, which can cut farm yields and drive up food prices.
Since the 19th century, the earth has warmed by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Computer models suggest that has driven up heat extremes four- to fivefold, according to the new study.
If global warming can be brought under control as rapidly as many environmental activists would like, keeping global warming below three degrees Fahrenheit, the new study found that heat extremes might increase only 14-fold later this century, compared with their frequency in the preindustrial world.
But runaway emissions, causing the planet to warm by more than five degrees Fahrenheit, would lead to a 62-fold increase in heat extremes, the researchers found. Other studies have forecast levels of heat and humidity by late this century that could make it dangerous for people to work and play outside, possibly for weeks on end.
While it might seem obvious that global warming would lead to more heat extremes, changes in heavy precipitation can seem less intuitive. Yet scientists predicted them decades ago, based on the principle that warmer air can take up more moisture from the surface of the ocean.
The increase is leading to heavier rainstorms across large parts of the United States, with the biggest effect in the Northeast, previous research found. At the same time, higher temperatures are drying out the soil and worsening the effects of droughts when they do occur, as in California over the last few years.
“The bottom line is that things are not that complicated,” Dr. Knutti said. “You make the world a degree or two warmer, and there will be more hot days. There will be more moisture in the atmosphere, so that must come down somewhere.”
Myles R. Allen, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford who was not involved in the new paper, said in an interview that “the method they use to add up risk on a global scale is spot on.” While previous research focused on particular disasters like the European heat wave, he added, the new approach does a better job of capturing the influence of greenhouse gases on more common types of weather extremes.
“We keep asking people to do something about climate change,” Dr. Allen said. “They deserve to know what climate change is doing to them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/science/new-study-links-weather-extremes-to-global-warming.html

So, for those of you that assume this won't impact you - your region - your family - your great grand children; I hope you find a large-cool cave that will provide you adequate shelter and a larger enough area to house your own hydroponics type of gardening ...because denying that 'Climate Change' hasn't escalated is just pure STUPID. 
But then you've left many of us with ZERO doubt in that regard

You lot still ignore the direct correlation to recent increase in solar activity...


Sun is more active and kicks out more energy... earth gets a little bit warmer...


It's pretty simple stuff people!!@


What are you finding so difficult to understand here...!?

To be fair they can't get the weather right for next week let alone in 50 plus years!

Tommy Monk wrote:You lot still ignore the direct correlation to recent increase in solar activity...


Sun is more active and kicks out more energy... earth gets a little bit warmer...


It's pretty simple stuff people!!@


What are you finding so difficult to understand here...!?

So you deliberately missed the bit that said solar activity had decreased. Nasa acknowledges climate change, nasa agrees we are causing it.

sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You lot still ignore the direct correlation to recent increase in solar activity...
Sun is more active and kicks out more energy... earth gets a little bit warmer...
It's pretty simple stuff people!!@
What are you finding so difficult to understand here...!?

So you deliberately missed the bit that said solar activity had decreased.  Nasa acknowledges climate change, nasa agrees we are causing it.

When our little Tommykins, has his 'Parachute Packer' club arrive on topic ...he's like the Energizer Bunny back to beating that same MANTRA that he just keeps repeating as if his regurgitations will change the current DATA! 
Good Grief ...if only little Tommykins - if only! 

We all could live in the Land Of Make Believe as you do!

sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You lot still ignore the direct correlation to recent increase in solar activity...


Sun is more active and kicks out more energy... earth gets a little bit warmer...


It's pretty simple stuff people!!@


What are you finding so difficult to understand here...!?

So you deliberately missed the bit that said solar activity had decreased.  Nasa acknowledges climate change, nasa agrees we are causing it.

No... solar activity has remained constant for the last 20 years or so... so that's why there has been no significant change in temperatures over this time...


But it is still more active than it was 100 years ago.


Ben posted up a graph pic showing increase in solar activity over last 100 years.


And temperature rise since then has followed the increasing solar output.

FROM THE NASA LINK ABOVE:

Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.⁷

NON-LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON has been pushing that "increasing solar activity" furphy for the last couple of decades...

Courtesy of the Koch bros. and the Big Oil & mining lobby..

Trust Tommy to carry on with their old deranged and misbegotten lies.          

4ever, Who is this supposed "parachute club" your always on about?

eddie wrote:I don't tend to call people loons simply because they question and don't follow the crowd.

Better a loon than a sheeple.

I'm tired of following the crowd, so I'm giving up eating. Food is for sheeple!

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't tend to call people loons simply because they question and don't follow the crowd.

Better a loon than a sheeple.

I'm tired of following the crowd, so I'm giving up eating. Food is for sheeple!

Crap analogy mate.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

NON-LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON has been pushing that "increasing solar activity" furphy for the last couple of decades...

Courtesy of the Koch bros. and the Big Oil & mining lobby..

Trust Tommy to carry on with their old deranged and misbegotten lies.          

Ben posted up a graph picture showing the solar activity over last 100 years...


He stood by it as being reliably sourced fact based data!!!



I agreed with his graph pic of solar activity and that it was accurate data!!!

sassy wrote:FROM THE NASA LINK ABOVE:

Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.⁷

The 'minimum' you talk about was still higher than the average minimum level for last 100 years... and still higher than the min levels seen in the first half of the century!!!

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't tend to call people loons simply because they question and don't follow the crowd.

Better a loon than a sheeple.

I'm tired of following the crowd, so I'm giving up eating. Food is for sheeple!

Crap analogy mate.

Not following "the crowd" on climate change:

Exxon-Mobil surely embodies free-thinking rebelliousness ...

Ben... Maybe you should post up that graph pic of yours again that showed solar activity over the last 100 years...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Ben... Maybe you should post up that graph pic of yours again that showed solar activity over the last 100 years...!?

You mean that one that you hilariously failed to understand? I'll see if I can find it again.

No the one where the solar activity was true but it also had a temp rise part that was proven to be complete bollocks!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't tend to call people loons simply because they question and don't follow the crowd.

Better a loon than a sheeple.

I'm tired of following the crowd, so I'm giving up eating. Food is for sheeple!

Crap analogy mate.

Not following "the crowd" on climate change:

I've no idea what you're on about and I never said I didn't believe in Climate change.

Tommy Monk wrote:

No the one where the solar activity was true but it also had a temp rise part that was proven to be complete bollocks!!!

Proven by who, by you? The same guy who thinks the Earth's axis got tilted and that homosexuality is "unnatural" even though gay people weren't created in labs?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

No the one where the solar activity was true but it also had a temp rise part that was proven to be complete bollocks!!!

Proven by who, by you? The same guy who thinks the Earth's axis got tilted and that homosexuality is "unnatural" even though gay people weren't created in labs?

Why don't you post it and then we can all have a look and see for ourselves...?

http://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html