Hothouse earth is on its way

Global warming could see the unprecedented heatwave occurring across the world.
I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Climate change: 'Hothouse Earth' risks even if CO₂ emissions slashed - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45084144

I blame arsehole like Tommy Monkey brain and his climate change denying wankers for not admitting we have a big problem.

It's going to end soon.

So if This Tommy Monkey brain and his climate change deniers admitted the problem exactly what difference would that make? What is the answer to this, do we go back to candles and walking everywhere, do we decimate the population to manageable levels, do we move a large portion of the population to Mars, people are demanding more of what we already have putting even more strain on the resources we have therefore causing more problems with carbon footprints so if you think this can be stopped in its tracks by humans doing something, what is the solution, any ideas?

So... nothing to do with CO2 then...

Here's some;
Forego Fossil fuels - great if there are viable cheap alternatives - bring it on.
Unplug - good idea - already do
One child - tick (difficult for a lot of cultures unless they have a guarantee of being taken care of in old age or sickness
Infrastructure upgrade - good idea - if you have the money.
Stop cutting down trees - great idea but again people have to have some other form of income other than those that cause trees especially rain forests to be cut down.
Be efficient - always doing this, learned early not to waste energy or water
Eat smart - go vegetarian - definately
Consume less - try to WE've only had five tv's in the last 30 years, we wait until they wear out before get a replacement along with everything else, we try to get the most energy efficient goods that we can - can still be quite an outlay monetarily for many people.
Move closer to work - try that if you work anywhere other than the stock exchange in London or even other cities.
Experiment Earth - geo engineering block sunlight or releasingsulfate particles into the atmosphere
don't like this idea at all could turn out to have even worse results when tinkering.

AT LAST proof positive that even Tommy cant deny......

Vintage wrote:So if This Tommy Monkey brain and his climate change deniers admitted the problem exactly what difference would that make? What is the answer to this, do we go back to candles and walking everywhere, do we decimate the population to manageable levels, do we move a large portion of the population to Mars, people are demanding more of what we already have putting even more strain on the resources we have therefore causing more problems with carbon footprints so if you think this can be stopped in its tracks by humans doing something, what is the solution, any ideas?

INVEST IN SOLAR 

we already have the renewable tech to Completely stop using Fossil fuels 

Literally the ONLY thing stopping society from doing that is Fossil fuel industry corrupting Gov't and Dimwits like Tommy that's Still vote for Corrupt twats (both literally and with their wallet) 


Your post is complete Rubbish in the year 2018. meant something 20 years ago 
NOW if we could just stop people thinking like it was 20 years ago we COULD FIX SHIT!!!

Very good LF...

That shows the change from being in the unusal cold period known as the 'mini ice age' to being back to the norm...


And veya... I am not against solar/wind/other etc... but you have to realise something... and I'll try to put it simply enough for you to understand...

If you're sitting indoors with your central heating/radiators on, and it's starting to get a bit too warm in there for you... it doesn't matter what power source you are using to produce the heating...

When are you going to get it through your thick head, Tommy...

There never was a genuine mini "ice age"..

That bullshit talk was an outright idiocy, generated by and for idiotic anti-science know-nothings such as your good self, for the purpose of explaining an unusualy extended period of extra cold over a localised area of Western Europe..

There is no evidence of anywhere else on the planet experiencing that extra-long stretch of typically fucked-up euro-centric snowflakiness, unfortunaltely for those insular Brits such as yourself who believes the sunshine only comes from your own backsides -- much like your idiptic comments on this subject.

Idiptic,? no such word mate !

And now we've learned that 71 percent of the CO2 is generated by just 100 corporations!

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

Jesus, if they would only take action at 100 companies, we'd have this problem largely solved.

This is for fleakeepee, who keeps on lying when he always tries to deny the cool period known as the 'mini ice age'...



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

End date: 1860




And Ben... the CO2 level is much the same now as it has been for thousands of years... so nothing to do with CO2...

FACE TGE FACTS AND STOP LISTENING TO THE WAFFLE!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:
This is for fleakeepee, who keeps on lying when he always tries to deny the cool period known as the 'mini ice age'...

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

End date: 1860

And Ben... the CO2 level is much the same now as it has been for thousands of years... so nothing to do with CO2...

FACE TGE FACTS AND STOP LISTENING TO THE WAFFLE!!!

ONLY braindead anti-science fucking arseholes like Tommy keep on with that shit...

Like I've said repeatedly the Maunder Minimum period --   which never was and never will be a fucking "mini ice age" by any stretch of the imagination -- has fucking well nothing at all, whatsoever to do with either global climate change, nor any of these discussions..

It didn't even constitute a real genuine "ice age", by any definitions, anyway..

The Maunder Minimum faux "mini ice age" had zero effects on Australia, southern Africa, most of Asia, the Americas, nor Antarctica,  according to all available evidence..

Only in Tommy's fetid anti-science fantasies does that shite have any bearing on these discussions --  and that creepy slithering neo-nazi punk has the hide to keep on calling me a "liar" !!!

P.S.  Googling meaningless and unsubstantiated opinions from Wikipedia, without any corroborating evidence from genuine scientifically-backed sources, doesn't constitute proof of any kind, you moronic little turd..

your touretts bad today wolfie????

maybe you need a break

It makes him feel masculine .

Fleakeepee doesn't want to admit the facts...


Plenty of independent historical evidence to back up what I said...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Fleakeepee doesn't want to admit the facts...


Plenty of independent historical evidence to back up what I said...!!!

What facts have you presented to show humans are not causing climate change?

Yes the climate has changed in the past for a variety of reasons, but were any humans living then or could live in such environments?

All you are doing is throwing out a moot argument, not actually discounting the countless evidence that is showing humans are having a drastic effect on the climate.

To the extent, that if this is not combated. Then humans will cease being able to live on this planet. Millions of years before it does eventually become inhabitable

This is another example of you Tommy, never looking at the actual evidence

All you do is throw in straw man arguments, which have been so many times debunked on here.

The reality is with you Tommy, its not a matter of skeptism, by looking at the data, to you its like religion.

You put it down to faith and not hard evidence.

You have not once look skeptically at your own claims, and dogmatically stick to them

Which makes you a fundementalist in denial of the human effect of climate change

Most of the last 2000 years have been warmer or just as warm as now...


Check what I say and you will find that I am entirely correct!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Most of the last 2000 years have been warmer or just as warm as now...


Check what I say and you will find that I am entirely correct!!!

Rubbish, there has been small peaks locally, not globally. As there is today.

I can present the evidence to you 

What I would like to know is when you say CO2 was higher in the past. How and why did many species become extinct?

Was it because it proves that such high levels are a massive threat to life?

With the massive amount of evidence that humans are causing a huge rise to CO2 levels?

So your view seems to be.

"Well its been high in the past and I am clueless to realise this killed off many species. So I want to remain ignorant to the fact this can happen again, but this time due to humans causing this"

Tommy Monk wrote:Fleakeepee doesn't want to admit the facts...


Plenty of independent historical evidence to back up what I said...!!!

The fact that it didn't happen in either Darwin or Melbourne clearly disqualifies the phenomenon of the Little Ice Age (or Mini Ice Age to use more modern parlance) as both scientific and historic reality in Wolfie's impenetrable logic.

As an historian of modest status I know little of the science involved, but I do know that the tradition of Thames Frost Fairs in London lasted from the beginning of the 17th century to the early 19th, when it must have bloody well felt like a mini ice age to Cockneys in London, regardless of what Aborigines were experiencing "down under."

So...I asked milady, who has three science degrees including two which incorporated the study of climatology, whether the Little (or mini, or small, or miniscule, or tiny, or insignificant or not very much - in order to satisfy Wolfie's pedanticism) Ice Age actually occurred.

"Of course it did..." was the response, followed by "...and it's been over for a hell of a long time, so the answer is 'no', you're not turning the central heating up..."

(She also said something along the lines of "...this Wolfie character sounds as though he is a thoroughly unpleasant bastard as well as being a bit of a dickhead..." but I will not repeat that in the interests of social cohesion within the forum........)

Tommy I’m as thick as shit when it comes to sciencey matters, but even I know that you’re talking bullcock.

eddie wrote:Tommy I’m as thick as shit when it comes to sciencey matters, but even I know that you’re talking bullcock.

Actually, Eddie, he isn't......................

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

eddie wrote:Tommy I’m as thick as shit when it comes to sciencey matters, but even I know that you’re talking bullcock.

Actually, Eddie, he isn't......................

Go on then. I’m listening.

The cold little ice age is accurate. That is the only thing he has said that was correct.

Love to understand how Fred thinks Tommy is correct on everything else though and I hope his girlfriend is up to scratch on climate science and would love to see what she thinks on everything else Tommy said. 

Like in regards to his claim on CO2 being roughly the same over thousands of years???



Or how he wrongly said that over the last 2,000 years, it has been warmer or just as warm as now. This was blatantly incorrect and using bad data.

For example in the years 950 to 1150, areas did become warmer, but certainly no where near as warm today. This was more localized with Europe. Which allowed for the Vikings to migrate to Greenland and live. However other parts became also cooler at this time. Hence it was not global warming. Of which we are going through today. Hence if you average out the tempreture globally for the time. It was no where near as warm globally today.






All yours Fred

eddie wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Actually, Eddie, he isn't......................

Go on then. I’m listening.

Generally, I'm neither a supporter nor a detractor of Tommy's opinions or conclusions, but on this particular contentious issue his views can be substantiated to my satisfaction and coincide largely with my own.

Reading Wolfie's utterly histrionic and meaningless rant does absolutely nothing to persuade me that he is right and that Tommy is wrong.

When you have such qualified opinion as diverse as that as Dr David Bellamy and the scientists of the allegedly authoritative but subsequently proven flawed climatologists of the University of East Anglia differentiating so much it is not unreasonable for a layman such as myself to harbour serious doubts about the validity of so-called perceived wisdom.

The earth is, what... four billion years old? During that time it has undergone eons of climate change ranging from the gradual to the violent. Such is acknowledged history.

We are in a cyclical period of change that does not encompass only the age of the internal combustion engine (an obvious and convenient candidate for punitive taxation by cash-hungry governments) but also flatulent dinosaurs!

So is Tommy wrong in his assumptions? Personally I think that they are just as valid as those of anyone else here, including the self-proclaimed scientific, er, genius of Wolfie.

And when it comes to the views of my other half...I am content to bow to the superior knowledge of a PhD and two B.Sc's.

What is the knowledge and credentials, of your other half? If you don’t mind me asking.

Which proves Fred does not have a clue either

Nobody denies that we have had at times global warming on the planet and the most important part. Is that when we have had rapid global warming in the past. Which is all explained by certain events and high levels of CO2. There has been many extinctions of animals also.

So Tommy's views are flawed, as yours are Fred, as what we are seeing now is a rapid rise in CO2 levels and tempretures. Which if it reaches a passing point. Then the world will be in turmoil. First water shortages and then food shortages. Leading to conflicts over these vital resources. With not long after this global famine.

It is human activity behind the massive rise in CO2 within the last 100 years and to give you an idea of how much CO2 humans are creating. Its a hundred more times greater than a Volcano. Which is staggering. Not only that people can see with their own eyes, how the weather is changing globally. Put it this way. Rapid climate changes are more devastating that asteroid impacts.

https://skepticalscience.com/Rapid-climate-change-deadlier-than-asteroid-impacts.html

I think in the south, we have seen the end of very cold winters. We now have mild ones. So the view as to what Tommy is saying and what you are saying is simple. That its going to happen.

No, we actually have the ability to also vastly reduce CO2 levels and we should do so for those we leave behind when we are gone. To not act, is utterly selfish and it goes back to the view. That people simple have not realised the gravity of the situation the furture of the earth faces. Its not just humans but all life.

So you may not agree with some scientists, even though over 95% climate scientists agree on this and the ones that do not. Are from the Fossil fuel industry

So go figure on that

Like I say the evidence is staggering for the rapid rise of CO2 and global warming and its being caused by humans. Which in the past has been seen to be devastating to life on earth. So people need to really open up their eyes to the future ahead.

Yep, I agree with didge and everyone else who says the same on this topic.

I am open to Fred changing my mind.

eddie wrote:Yep, I agree with didge and everyone else who says the same on this topic.

I am open to Fred changing my mind.

So am I, but sadly all I am seeing is the view. That is already known. That there have been high levels in the past.

Yes, we know this and what caused them and in each case of such a rapid rise of global warming and CO2 levels, there has always been devastation to the planet.

So I fail to understand how Fred, who I know is very intelligent. Cannot see for himself the impact of humans are having with CO2 levels with global warming?

Here is every argument made by deniers answered, if he so wishes to read

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Dr Benjamin Cook is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Few areas of the world are completely immune to droughts and their often-devastating impacts on water resources, ecosystems and people.

Regions as diverse as California, the Eastern Mediterranean, East Africa, South Africa and Australia have all experienced severe – and, in some cases, unprecedented – droughts in recent years.

As with other climate and weather extremes, such as storms and floods, these events have spurred strong interest in questions surrounding the impact of climate change. For example, is climate change making droughts more frequent or severe? And can we expect climate change to contribute to increased drought risk and severity in the future?

The most recent research shows climate change is already making many parts of the world drier and droughts are likely to pack more punch as the climate warms further.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-climate-change-is-already-making-droughts-worse

Night everyone

Lord Foul wrote:AT LAST proof positive that even Tommy cant deny......

I got stuck in the 70,s....practical yet pretty.

Thanks Moley!


Secondly... didge... sceptical science and the Goddard institute are not independent sources... both are heavily promoters of the climate change waffle...


Look at some independent sources... as Moley said... his Mrs confirmed the 'mini ice age'...

eddie wrote:What is the knowledge and credentials, of your other half? If you don’t mind me asking.

PhD in geology with a specialism in vulcanology; BSc in earth sciences and BSc in environmental policy. At least I think that's what they are. Mine are just boring English lang 'n' lit.

She also has big tits, which, of course, are my main interest.........

eddie wrote:Yep, I agree with didge and everyone else who says the same on this topic.

I am open to Fred changing my mind.

I wouldn't dream of trying to do so, Eddie. As I said, climate change is cyclical; anyone with a basic knowledge of the earth's history knows that. The extent to which current fluctuations may be attributed to the intervention of mankind (OK, then, personkind...) is debatable.

I'm not saying that I'm right; I'm not conceding that Wolfie, you, Didge, et al are right.

It's not something that keeps me awake at night.

Tommy Monk wrote:Thanks Moley!


Secondly... didge... sceptical science and the Goddard institute are not independent sources... both are heavily promoters of the climate change waffle...


Look at some independent sources... as Moley said... his Mrs confirmed the 'mini ice age'...

lol, they are backed up by sources, studies, evidence and I see you did not even look at them.

All you did was as per usual, not read them and be in denial, making spurious claims

How about you look at the mass of evidence and actually take on my points

I never denied the mini-ice age

What I did show is how in fact, you got countless things wrong

So go back and take on my points and actually research climate change

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

eddie wrote:Yep, I agree with didge and everyone else who says the same on this topic.

I am open to Fred changing my mind.

I wouldn't dream of trying to do so, Eddie. As I said, climate change is cyclical; anyone with a basic knowledge of the earth's history knows that. The extent to which current fluctuations may be attributed to the intervention of mankind (OK, then, personkind...) is debatable.

I'm not saying that I'm right; I'm not conceding that Wolfie, you, Didge, et al are right.

It's not something that keeps me awake at night.

And there lies the problem

Not caring for those we leave behind, or understanding the problems that we could face

The very fact in these cycles you claim, where we know what caused rapid global warming. Where again its down to high CO2 levels. Where again it causes devastation to life and yet now we are the cause of this

Its something that should give you cause for concern, if you actually care for those we will leave behind.

Again the very fact there has been such devastation before, from where there is a rapid rise in global warming and what effects this has. Should make anyone sit up and listen.

If you and Tommy, do not want to look at the evidence, then that to me, is being lazy and afraid to do so, as you clearly might end up being wrong.

I am not afraid to be wrong and if I was wrong, then no problem, but think about the consequences of you and Tommy being wrong, because you simple never actually read anything on this. The reality is, its people that can help sway governements to act before its too late. As when it is too late, then the planet is screwed

To say its debateable, is clearly someone not actually looking at all the evidence. As the evidence is staggering, humans are causing the high levels of CO2

I think Humans are only part of the problem !

Didge... you have no points... and your sources are not independent or unbiased... they are promoters of the waffle

eddie wrote:Tommy I’m as thick as shit when it comes to sciencey matters, but even I know that you’re talking bullcock.

Try looking into it a bit... on independent historical web sites... and you will see that I speak the truth...

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you have no points... and your sources are not independent or unbiased... they are promoters of the waffle

Copout alert

You have simple run away from my points, as you either simple have no idea what you are talking about or you do and know that you are in the wrong

Its as simple as that

Now you can do your typical merry dance where you continually avoid them, which I am happy with or you can actually take them on.

Your choice

Tommy is full of shit...

Tommy is happy to pass on a much worse world to his descendents..

Tommy keeps on claiming to know better than any scientists and researchers, climatologists, farmers and foresters.

Then again, Tommy also claims to be "genius"..

The only simple thing here didge, is you!!!


And fleakeeper... I am all in favour of a better world... but I am just stating facts...!

What do you know? If you don't even know about the cool period widely known as 'The mini ice age'...???

If you don't even know about that, then how can you be any type of knowledgeable authority on the global temperatures over the last 2000 years or so...???

If you actually bothered to find out, from independent historical sources, you will see that I am correct in what I say!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:The only simple thing here didge, is you!!!


And fleakeeper... I am all in favour of a better world... but I am just stating facts...!

What do you know? If you don't even know about the cool period widely known as 'The mini ice age'...???

If you don't even know about that, then how can you be any type of knowledgeable authority on the global temperatures over the last 2000 years or so...???

If you actually bothered to find out, from independent historical sources, you will see that I am correct in what I say!!!

What facts?

Where did i ever deny a mini ice age?

Never did

I actually pointed out the errors in your claim, that the CO2 levels have been roughly the same for thousands of years.

I easily pointed out, that was complete bollocks

I then easily pointed out, your view on tempretures being the same or hotter in the last 2,000 years as today.

That was bollocks again

The fact is, I have bothered to find out and all I can see, is someone so blinded to the facts, they are so fundemental as you are, that you cannot even question what you believe.

I have looked at the evidence you have posted many times and apply the skeptical test.

To look at what I believe, with the same venomn, that I do to climate change denialists

Each time, I saw, that the facts are countless, that humans are effecting the climate and drastically so

Now again, I knew you would use a circular argument and not actually answer my points

All you will do now, is continually avoid them and completely use poor straw man arguments, not backed by science

Didge wrote:The cold little ice age is accurate. That is the only thing he has said that was correct.

Love to understand how Fred thinks Tommy is correct on everything else though and I hope his girlfriend is up to scratch on climate science and would love to see what she thinks on everything else Tommy said. 

Like in regards to his claim on CO2 being roughly the same over thousands of years???



Or how he wrongly said that over the last 2,000 years, it has been warmer or just as warm as now. This was blatantly incorrect and using bad data.

For example in the years 950 to 1150, areas did become warmer, but certainly no where near as warm today. This was more localized with Europe. Which allowed for the Vikings to migrate to Greenland and live. However other parts became also cooler at this time. Hence it was not global warming. Of which we are going through today. Hence if you average out the tempreture globally for the time. It was no where near as warm globally today.






All yours Fred

Posted for Tommy

Posted from biased source with an agenda... check some independent historical sources...

Tommy Monk wrote:Posted from biased source with an agenda... check some independent historical sources...

wow

That is all you can some up with Tommy. after 2 hour laters

How is it biased?

Its corroborated by many studies

In other words, this is me, showing you up

You say check the sources, when the sources, are actually listed

I love when someone so bad as you Tommy, falls foul, on your own arguments

Tommy Monk wrote:

You mean this graph tommy
#

Which proves your claim, is wrong, even by your own views, does it not, even if we used your edited graph?

Like i said, the climate denialists use localized weather tempretures and not global, as we have today

Even the ones in the past are pale in comparison to todays tempretures globally

Anything else tommy?

This is just one graph I found after looking for a couple of minutes...


Try looking for a while and you will find more detailed analysis from multiple sources that corroborate what I say...