UK first to declare a climate change emergency.

by Andy Wed May 01, 2019 8:03 pm

Well done to Greta Thunberg, Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Gove for their stance. From small acorns mighty oaks grow.

Check out @UKLabour’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1123650599734644736?s=09

So Skunky Stenchbandit, Monkey brain and all the other climate change deniers can stick that up their arses.

by Vintage Wed May 01, 2019 8:23 pm

'can stick that up their arses.' Excellent idea it could help a lot, it could certainly help with the carbon dioxide not to mention methane in the atmosphere from human farts, just imagine how much of each is generated in 63 million population, even with one fart each a day. 63 million times 9% for carbon dioxide and the same by 7% for methane.

by Andy Wed May 01, 2019 8:45 pm

Climate change denyers talk shit, so CO2 and methane probably emanates from both ends.

by Guest Wed May 01, 2019 11:10 pm

Enjoy living in a dank cold cave and eating grass

On a positive not you will die before me, your complications will prove problematic witg electricity to power the hospital

Your death, I will celebrate.

by Syl Wed May 01, 2019 11:26 pm

Vintage wrote:'can stick that up their arses.' Excellent idea it could help a lot, it could certainly help with the carbon dioxide not to mention methane in the atmosphere from human farts, just imagine how much of each is generated in 63 million population, even with one fart each a day. 63 million times 9% for carbon dioxide and the same by 7% for methane.

I'm sure I read once that the average human farts 12 times a day....I will leave you to work that one out Vintage.

by Guest Wed May 01, 2019 11:42 pm

God looks down and thinks

"ah yes humans, depraved, Arrogant, violent and stupid, the worst of my creations"

"last time I used a flood to put them back in line because they were depraved. shit!!! This time round I won't even have to lift a finger to wipe em out, their own" climate change" cult will do my job for me "

" hey luci, what's next on my agenda? "

by 'Wolfie Thu May 02, 2019 1:56 am

smelly-bandit wrote:God looks down and thinks

"ah yes humans, depraved, Arrogant, violent and stupid, the worst of my creations"

"last time I used a flood to put them back in line because they were depraved. shit!!! This time round I won't even have to lift a finger to wipe em out, their own" climate change" cult will do my job for me "

" hey luci, what's next on my agenda? "

Unfortunately for you, Smellybrain fartface, your imagined oill&mining company-inspired personal "God" is talking out of your arse -- and not 'down' from above...

Tell us again which university it was that you studied at, that you can continually come on here ranting against the obvious truths of climate change, while claiming that you know so much better than the great majority of reputable scientists..

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 8:23 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:God looks down and thinks

"ah yes humans, depraved, Arrogant, violent and stupid, the worst of my creations"

"last time I used a flood to put them back in line because they were depraved. shit!!! This time round I won't even have to lift a finger to wipe em out, their own" climate change" cult will do my job for me "

" hey luci, what's next on my agenda? "

Unfortunately for you, Smellybrain fartface, your imagined oill&mining company-inspired personal "God" is talking out of your arse -- and not 'down' from above...

Tell us again which university it was that you studied at, that you can continually come on here ranting against the obvious truths of climate change, while claiming that you know so much better than the great majority of reputable scientists..

Which ones??

The Reputable scientists that claim toxic masculinity is responsible for global warming or the ones that think cows farting is responsible for it???

I think the "eat less red meat to curb climate change" scientists need to talk to the "cows farting done it" scientists because if we eat less meat there will be more cows

More cows = more farting = more climate change

These reputable scientists don't seem to have a fucking clue about it, none of them can agree on what is actually causing it.

Seems to me they are applying the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" kind of science.

Its funny

Athiests don't believe in God because they can't see him.

I've never seen a carbon footprint, but climate change tinhat nut jobs like you still believe in something that can't be measure, seen, touched or felt

If it looks like dog shit, I don't need to taste it to make sure

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 8:36 am

It's funny, the climate change cultists are also the socialists who want equality but propose a policy that will ensure only the rich have access to air travel

And of course climate change comes a distant second to enjoying their Mcdonalds milk shakes

They extinction rebellion are asking for more plastic straws cause the paper ones are shit

by Eilzel Thu May 02, 2019 8:45 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:God looks down and thinks

"ah yes humans, depraved, Arrogant, violent and stupid, the worst of my creations"

"last time I used a flood to put them back in line because they were depraved. shit!!! This time round I won't even have to lift a finger to wipe em out, their own" climate change" cult will do my job for me "

" hey luci, what's next on my agenda? "

Unfortunately for you, Smellybrain fartface, your imagined oill&mining company-inspired personal "God" is talking out of your arse -- and not 'down' from above...

Tell us again which university it was that you studied at, that you can continually come on here ranting against the obvious truths of climate change, while claiming that you know so much better than the great majority of reputable scientists..

Which ones??

The Reputable scientists that claim toxic masculinity is responsible for global warming or the ones that think cows farting is responsible for it???

I think the "eat less red meat to curb climate change" scientists need to talk to the "cows farting done it" scientists because if we eat less meat there will be more cows

More cows = more farting = more climate change

These reputable scientists don't seem to have a fucking clue about it, none of them can agree on what is actually causing it.

Seems to me they are applying the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" kind of science.

Its funny

Athiests don't believe in God because they can't see him.

I've never seen a carbon footprint, but climate change tinhat nut jobs like you still believe in something that can't be measure, seen, touched or felt

If it looks like dog shit, I don't need to taste it to make sure

So much bullshit is such irrelevant words.

Why would there be more cows? We only breed cows in the first place for milk and beef. Suffice to say, if we ate less beef, we would stop breeding as many cows and there would be - wait for it - less cows Rolling Eyes

And yes, we cannot 'see' a carbon footprint - but we certainly see and feel its effects in the form of pollution and climate change. Not sure what physical evidence there is that god actually listens to any of what religionists spend their lives asking for Laughing

by Vintage Thu May 02, 2019 9:55 am

Syl wrote:
Vintage wrote:'can stick that up their arses.' Excellent idea it could help a lot, it could certainly help with the carbon dioxide not to mention methane in the atmosphere from human farts, just imagine how much of each is generated in 63 million population, even with one fart each a day. 63 million times 9% for carbon dioxide and the same by 7% for methane.

I'm sure I read once that the average human farts 12 times a day....I will leave you to work that one out Vintage.

Sounds like we fart even more than cows, so it is right - humans are the cause of climate change - by farting.

by nicko Thu May 02, 2019 10:36 am

Causes of Global Warming NOT caused by Humans.

Volcanoes , Forest Fires, Methane from Sea Bed, Cow Farts . I'm sure there's more, any other ideas ?

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 11:32 am

nicko wrote:Causes of Global Warming NOT caused by Humans.

Volcanoes , Forest Fires, Methane from Sea Bed, Cow Farts . I'm sure there's more, any other ideas ?

Throughout the earth's history, it has been warmer and colder than it is now

But don't ask a climate cultist to address that fact.

by Eilzel Thu May 02, 2019 11:49 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
nicko wrote:Causes of Global Warming NOT caused by Humans.

Volcanoes , Forest Fires, Methane from Sea Bed, Cow Farts . I'm sure there's more, any other ideas ?

Throughout the earth's history, it has been warmer and colder than it is now

But don't ask a climate cultist to address that fact.

Of course there were far fewer, if any, people around at those times to suffer the consequences. Plus, it didn't happen at the same rate as it is doing now. And, you may have failed to notice, but it continues to get warmer Rolling Eyes

^nicko, forest fires can be natural, but many are caused by man. The number of cows on this planet is a direct result of human's breeding them for food and are one of the leading causes of global warming.

Volcanoes make a relatively minor contribution.

by Syl Thu May 02, 2019 12:09 pm

Vintage wrote:
Syl wrote:

I'm sure I read once that the average human farts 12 times a day....I will leave you to work that one out Vintage.

Sounds like we fart even more than cows, so it is right - humans are the cause of climate change - by farting.

And it's a well known fact that men fart twice as much as women so once again it's the males of the world who are causing most of the problems. Wink

by 'Wolfie Thu May 02, 2019 1:52 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Unfortunately for you, Smellybrain fartface, your imagined oill&mining company-inspired personal "God" is talking out of your arse -- and not 'down' from above...

Tell us again which university it was that you studied at, that you can continually come on here ranting against the obvious truths of climate change, while claiming that you know so much better than the great majority of reputable scientists..

Which ones??

The Reputable scientists that claim toxic masculinity is responsible for global warming or the ones that think cows farting is responsible for it???

I think the "eat less red meat to curb climate change" scientists need to talk to the "cows farting done it" scientists because if we eat less meat there will be more cows

More cows = more farting = more climate change

These reputable scientists don't seem to have a fucking clue about it, none of them can agree on what is actually causing it.

Seems to me they are applying the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" kind of science.

Its funny

Athiests don't believe in God because they can't see him.

I've never seen a carbon footprint, but climate change tinhat nut jobs like you still believe in something that can't be measure, seen, touched or felt

If it looks like dog shit, I don't need to taste it to make sure

I've said it before, and I will say it again...

You're a fucking moron.
And nothing more than a lying, noisy little troll..

You don't understand science, so it scares you.
You distrust scientists, so you're all too happy to repeat your beloved mining&oil company propaganda lies..

Everything you have posted above is pure bullshit...

And you simply keep on posting your arrogant and simple minded lies on here, on top of all that lying idiotic crap you have posted before..

If you're ever fortunate enough to have any grandchildren in real life, they will certainly be cursing your memory in future years.

by 'Wolfie Thu May 02, 2019 2:03 pm

nicko wrote:
Causes of Global Warming NOT caused by Humans.

Volcanoes , Forest Fires, Methane from Sea Bed, Cow Farts . I'm sure there's more, any other ideas ?

Your examples are irrelevant to this particular thread, nicko...

The subject here is accelerating climate change, due to mankinds effects on the earth's climatology and environs -- not any natural causes of global warming and global cooling that preceded the 'Industrial Revolution' and the great increases in both mankinds' dual sins of ever-increasing industrial pollution and deforrestation over the past 300 years..

Maybe it's well past time that you stopped listening to ignorant know-nothings like Smelly' and Tommy -- and actually started looking at what's going on out in the wider world ?

by nicko Thu May 02, 2019 4:08 pm

Sonny, I know what's going on, Iv been there ,seen it ,got the "T" shirt, where as you, just read the papers and watch TV !

by nicko Thu May 02, 2019 4:09 pm

PS, I didn't say it was not warming up did I ?

by Original Quill Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 pm

Syl wrote:
Vintage wrote:

Sounds like we fart even more than cows, so it is right - humans are the cause of climate change - by farting.

And it's a well known fact that men fart twice as much as women so once again it's the males of the world who are causing most of the problems.

Women fart?? I didn't know that.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 02, 2019 5:59 pm

UK first to declare a climate change emergency. Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR8U7UN_sJjZcv8_d8JgpTIOeGvhfkiXUNYqCM26AS1CXM-Q

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR8U7UN_sJjZcv8_d8JgpTIOeGvhfkiXUNYqCM26AS1CXM-Q

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 7:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR8U7UN_sJjZcv8_d8JgpTIOeGvhfkiXUNYqCM26AS1CXM-Q

Climate Myth...

Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Even if the warming were as big as the IPCC imagines, it would not be as dangerous as Mr. Brown suggests. After all, recent research suggests that some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the present by up to 3 Celsius degrees: yet here we all are. (Christopher Monckton)

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:
UK first to declare a climate change emergency. 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:
UK first to declare a climate change emergency. Alley2000

UK first to declare a climate change emergency. 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:
UK first to declare a climate change emergency. 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):
UK first to declare a climate change emergency. GRIPtempBox480

UK first to declare a climate change emergency. 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):
UK first to declare a climate change emergency. GISP210k480

UK first to declare a climate change emergency. 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.

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

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 7:24 pm

See???

This is why you never mention the fact that temperatures have been higher and lower than they are now

The climate cultists are insane

"yes the temperature has been higher and lower and was completely nature but THIS time its definitely not nature and entirely man made"

Riiiiiiiight

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 7:29 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:See???

This is why you never mention the fact that temperatures have been higher and lower than they are now

The climate cultists are insane

"yes the temperature has been higher and lower and was completely nature but THIS time its definitely not nature and entirely man made"

Riiiiiiiight

Is that why you never actually look at the data smelly?

You see, you are like you are with your religious faith, dogmatic

You claim to be open minded, but you never look at any evidence properly and take the view of some charlatans. Who as seen by Tommy, posted a graph, that was disingineous. He tried to use actual data from the Greenland core and then make false claims off something localised and even worse. Extend the timeframe, falsely.

Hey ho, as seen you dont want to look at anything skeptically and countless Times Tommy has posted this same graph by Don Easterman and countless times, this has been easily debunked

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 7:31 pm

Climate cultist : "I'm so superior to everyone else because I have science on my side, Cow Farts are responsible for global warming therefore climate Change is man made"

Normal person : "but cows are natural animals and darting is a natural bodily function and cows aren't human, so if cow Farts are natural then climate change must be natural as well"

Climate cultist : "BLASPHEMY!!!!!! HERESY!!!!! BURN THE HERETIC, KILL THE UNBELIEVER"

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 7:33 pm

https://mol.im/a/6984711

Yep it's definitely getting hotter
UK first to declare a climate change emergency. 3489511464

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 7:37 pm

Why is this thread in general science??

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 7:37 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:https://mol.im/a/6984711

Yep it's definitely getting hotter

Yes it is getting hotter globally and this again shows the absurd notion of someone quite litteraly lacking any understanding of science

In reality the Uk should have a much colder climate, but we get much higher tempretures based on the gulf stream that comes up from South America.

Hilarious, that you use one location to make an argument here, which is a localized event

Maybe you can explain this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-48121606

As seen each year weather conditions are getting more and more severe

by Ben Reilly Thu May 02, 2019 7:42 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:God looks down and thinks

"ah yes humans, depraved, Arrogant, violent and stupid, the worst of my creations"

"last time I used a flood to put them back in line because they were depraved. shit!!! This time round I won't even have to lift a finger to wipe em out, their own" climate change" cult will do my job for me "

" hey luci, what's next on my agenda? "

Unfortunately for you, Smellybrain fartface, your imagined oill&mining company-inspired personal "God" is talking out of your arse -- and not 'down' from above...

Tell us again which university it was that you studied at, that you can continually come on here ranting against the obvious truths of climate change, while claiming that you know so much better than the great majority of reputable scientists..

That sounds like something my 7-year-old stepdaughter would have come up with ... when she was 3.

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 7:45 pm

So this is the tempreture forecast for this weekend

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcqmtsg69#?date=2019-05-06

This the average tempreture for May in the Uk

Across the UK, May temperatures average a daily high of 16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit) and a low of 7 °C (44 °F).

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/United-Kingdom/temperature-may.php

So the forecast for this weekend does not fall below seasonal norm

How embarressing for smelly and to further embarress him

The March globally averaged land surface temperature was 3.46°F above the 20th century average of 40.8°F. This value was also the second highest March land temperature in the 140-year record, trailing behind the record warm March of 2016 (+4.30°F).

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201903

by Tommy Monk Thu May 02, 2019 9:49 pm

Didge... I posted a graph of the actual data collected from the actual GISP2 scientists study...!

You have posted up a load of waffle that you are too stupid to even understand the basics of why it is spurious waffle...

And we both already know that no matter how much time and effort and evidence I give to you, in explaining/proving the hows and whys and the truth of it all... you will still be too stupid to understand any of it, and will still be stuck in your misguided beliefs of bullshit...!

So... ill let you just carry on with repeating the big lie as much as you like...

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 9:56 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge... I posted a graph of the actual data collected from the actual GISP2 scientists study...!

You have posted up a load of waffle that you are too stupid to even understand the basics of why it is spurious waffle...

And we both already know that no matter how much time and effort and evidence I give to you, in explaining/proving the hows and whys and the truth of it all... you will still be too stupid to understand any of it, and will still be stuck in your misguided beliefs of bullshit...!

So... ill let you just carry on with repeating the big lie as much as you like...

Fallacy response

Claiming I have posted a load of waffle, without ever refuting any of the evidence i presented and then you present another fallacy

Insults

What have you done to refute my evidence Tommy?

I presented a counter view point and all you did, was present fallacy arguments

One from ignorance and the other ad hominem

Of course you can attempt to refute the evidence I presented, which showed that Don Easterbrook falsified his claims

Over to you

by Tommy Monk Thu May 02, 2019 10:03 pm

You haven't presented any evidence... all you have posted is waffle that makes unsubstantiated claims against the GISP2 ice core data...!

Why don't you post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data... and then we can go from there...!?

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 10:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
You haven't presented any evidence... all you have posted is waffle that makes unsubstantiated claims against the GISP2 ice core data...!

Why don't you post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data... and then we can go from there...!?

Fallacy yet again

You are just claiming something is wrong, without ever being able to refute it

Did you even read what I posted?

Why not try and actually refute what I posted

Otherwise, its you blowing huge amounts of big air, like West ham, forever blowing bubbles.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 02, 2019 10:09 pm

Why don't you just post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data... and then we can go from there...!?

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 10:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Why don't you just post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data... and then we can go from there...!?

So we have injected another fallacy, moving the goal posts

You presented a graph

I presented evidence, to counter your claim

You do everything to avoid the evidence I presented and then ask me to present something for you?

You need to counter my evidence

Your tally, is 3 fallcies so far and I am going to place bets that you will reach 5 by the end of this debate

by Tommy Monk Thu May 02, 2019 10:19 pm

My graph was nothing to do with the claims that you copy & pasted about it being anything to do with this "don easterbrook" claimed figure fudger of yours...!

So... either you post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data figures in graph form... and show the clear differences from the graph data that I posted up earlier... or you fuck right off with your bullshit...!!!???

Choice is yours...

Over to you...

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 10:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

My graph was nothing to do with the claims that you copy & pasted about it being anything to do with this "don easterbrook" claimed figure fudger of yours...!

So... either you post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data figures in graph form... and show the clear differences from the graph data that I posted up earlier... or you fuck right off with your bullshit...!!!???

Choice is yours...

Over to you...

The graph you presented is by Don Easterbrook

If you read my counter, you would see, that it speaks emphatically how he falsified the data. Being the fact that he extended his graph, way past how ice core data is collated. Not only is it a regional data collated, but can in no way make a view on global tempretures for the time and yet you think it is.

I have an easy choice here, you simple cannot counter the evidence and hence decide to invoke 3 poor fallacies
You are so badly, trying to deflect here, that if we used your ability to dodge evidence. We would never have a problem with future asteroid/comet impacts. We would simple only have to invoke your ability to engage how you dodge constantly the evidence

by Ben Reilly Thu May 02, 2019 10:33 pm

Here's something drawn purely from personal experience: England of today, climate wise, reminds me of Texas in the mid-1980s. The only real difference is that England gets more rain and I haven't seen the truly searing heat here that Texas can get.

Texas of today is getting blisteringly, dangerously hot, usually for a good five months out of the year. And people who've lived in Texas a long time can remember when the climate was much cooler.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 02, 2019 10:41 pm

Didge... Why don't you post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data... and then we can go from there...!?

Ben... what was it like in Texas 500 years ago...?

How about 1000 years ago...?

How about 2000 years ago...?

Cos if you look at the ice core data study that shows a comprehensive account of temp changes over the last 10000 years, you can clearly see that we are a bit warmer now than 100-500 years ago... but this 500 year period was a very cool period when compared to the rest of the last 10000 years when it was much warmer for most of this time...!

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 10:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge... Why don't you post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data... and then we can go from there...!?

Ben... what was it like in Texas 500 years ago...?

How about 1000 years ago...?

How about 2000 years ago...?

Cos if you look at the ice core data study that shows a comprehensive account of temp changes over the last 10000 years, you can clearly see that we are a bit warmer now than 100-500 years ago... but this 500 year period was a very cool period when compared to the rest of the last 10000 years when it was much warmer for most of this time...!

1) Fallacy number 3 again, asking me to post something, that you fail to post yourself.
Greenland ice cores, only represent localised weather, not global
If you had read my counter reply, instead of ignoring this, which you certainly did. You would see your error. Not only that, the time balance, throws back your claim many years. Now I will give you an opportunity to read the counter and understand why

2) So now Tommy invokes fallacy number 4 Unfalsifiability to Ben
Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

3) Now again to really disprove Tommys claim on ice cores.

e]i]
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:[/i]

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):

One more fallacy to go from tommy, and I win my bet

by Vintage Thu May 02, 2019 10:58 pm

The real reason is there are far too many people around, you all know what happens when you get a lot of people in one place, all that body heat in a confined space, even on a cold day, the temperature rises.

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 10:59 pm

Anyway, really have to go to bed

Will look in tomorrow and see if Tommy applies his fifth fallacy

Night everyone

Laughing

by Guest Thu May 02, 2019 11:03 pm

Vintage wrote:The real reason is there are far too many people around, you all know what happens when you get a lot of people in one place, all that body heat in a confined space, even on a cold day, the temperature rises.

Fallacy, as the heat from humans is miniscule in the broader sense. As in reality, humans lose most of their body heat, as it quickly dissipates.
If we could store that body heat, we would be able to change the reality of heat storage.

So yes, we know what happens, when you place many people in an enclosed space. Even though there is 8 billion of us, its within an open space Vintage and that heats rapidly dissipates

Night

by Tommy Monk Thu May 02, 2019 11:15 pm

phildidge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

My graph was nothing to do with the claims that you copy & pasted about it being anything to do with this "don easterbrook" claimed figure fudger of yours...!

So... either you post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data figures in graph form... and show the clear differences from the graph data that I posted up earlier... or you fuck right off with your bullshit...!!!???

Choice is yours...

Over to you...

The graph you presented is by Don Easterbrook

If you read my counter, you would see, that it speaks emphatically how he falsified the data. Being the fact that he extended his graph, way past how ice core data is collated. Not only is it a regional data collated, but can in no way make a view on global tempretures for the time and yet you think it is.

I have an easy choice here, you simple cannot counter the evidence and hence decide to invoke 3 poor fallacies
You are so badly, trying to deflect here, that if we used your ability to dodge evidence. We would never have a problem with future asteroid/comet impacts. We would simple only have to invoke your ability to engage how you dodge constantly the evidence

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge... Why don't you post up the official unrefutable GISP2 data... and then we can go from there...!?

Ben... what was it like in Texas 500 years ago...?

How about 1000 years ago...?

How about 2000 years ago...?

I'm only asking questions...

Can you give me answers, instead of throwing accusations...!?

by Vintage Thu May 02, 2019 11:19 pm

phildidge wrote:
Vintage wrote:The real reason is there are far too many people around, you all know what happens when you get a lot of people in one place, all that body heat in a confined space, even on a cold day, the temperature rises.

Fallacy, as the heat from humans is miniscule in the broader sense. As in reality, humans lose most of their body heat, as it quickly dissipates.
If we could store that body heat, we would be able to change the reality of heat storage.

So yes, we know what happens, when you place many people in an enclosed space. Even though there is 8 billion of us, its within an open space Vintage and that heats rapidly dissipates

Night

Don't think so everything we do creates extra heat, not just the body heat which would dissipate, but however many billion? It's bound to make a difference, added to that the heat we generate with our lifestyle ie carbon footprint.
If you have too many animals of a species in one place they have to disperse or many die, humans have managed to avoid this process up to a point but now there isn't much place left to disperse to, the more habitat we destroy the more we alter the balance of the planet and in the end we suffer, after of course so many species suffer first.

by Syl Thu May 02, 2019 11:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

And it's a well known fact that men fart twice as much as women so once again it's the males of the world who are causing most of the problems.

Women fart?? I didn't know that.

Understandable, most dont do it in public. snobby

by Vintage Thu May 02, 2019 11:40 pm

- and when they do its usually not quite as potent.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 02, 2019 11:42 pm

phildidge wrote:
Vintage wrote:The real reason is there are far too many people around, you all know what happens when you get a lot of people in one place, all that body heat in a confined space, even on a cold day, the temperature rises.

Fallacy, as the heat from humans is miniscule in the broader sense. As in reality, humans lose most of their body heat, as it quickly dissipates.
If we could store that body heat, we would be able to change the reality of heat storage.

So yes, we know what happens, when you place many people in an enclosed space. Even though there is 8 billion of us, its within an open space Vintage and that heats rapidly dissipates

Night

Didge... seriously..........!?

WTF!!!???

lol!

Where does "heat" go, when it "dissipates"...!?

And... what source of heat is it that you think is responsible for warming the planet, if you think "heat from human bodies" are absolutely nothing to do with adding to the "global heat"?

Can you explain how "dissipation of heat" works again...!?

lol!

by Guest Fri May 03, 2019 12:05 am

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Here's something drawn purely from personal experience: England of today, climate wise, reminds me of Texas in the mid-1980s. The only real difference is that England gets more rain and I haven't seen the truly searing heat here that Texas can get.

Texas of today is getting blisteringly, dangerously hot, usually for a good five months out of the year. And people who've lived in Texas a long time can remember when the climate was much cooler.

Can't get more scientific than that.

Im convinced

by Sponsored content