UK first to declare a climate change emergency.

phildidge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Who gives a stuff what Emma Thompson does with her $$millions$$...

She has nothing to do with this current discussion..

Just more mindless deflections from the regular whining right-wing corporatist shill snowflake contingent on here.

Exactly, its nothing more than a distraction from the reality of global warming

Vintage wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Who gives a stuff what Emma Thompson does with her $$millions$$...

She has nothing to do with this current discussion..

Just more mindless deflections from the regular whining right-win, g corporatist shill snowflake contingent on here.

you do talk nonsense sometimes, it has everything to do with the subject. You don't preach one thing to the masses and do the opposite yourself unless you are a hypocrite, some people see her flitting around after admonishing others and think there can't really be a problem then and we'll carry on as normal. What happened to showing an example,

Vintage wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Exactly, its nothing more than a distraction from the reality of global warming

another rubbish talker on times, it has a lot to do with the subject. Showing an example after admonishing the masses might convince more people than travelling in luxury on personal trips. Ordinary people are being asked to walk, cycle buy expensive electric cars, turn down the thermostat etc and those telling us just carry on regardless?

Vintage wrote:


another rubbish talker on times, it has a lot to do with the subject. Showing an example after admonishing the masses might convince more people than travelling in luxury on personal trips. Ordinary people are being asked to walk, cycle buy expensive electric cars, turn down the thermostat etc and those telling us just carry on regardless?

phildidge wrote:

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:

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:

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:

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):

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):

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

Tommy Monk wrote:

Waffle!!!


I posted the official GISP2 ice core data!!!


And it clearly shows the truth about temperatures being warmer for most of the last 10000 years!!!


And if you look at the Antarctic ice core data over the last half a million years, you will see that if the previous cycles shown are continued, then we are due to be entering another ice age!

Odyssey of Errors

Easterbrook’s version of the GISP2-based temperature reconstruction graph, as featured on the Watts Up With That blog.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

Tommy Monk wrote:
Waffle!!!

No, Tommy, you're the fool waffling on here..

I posted the official GISP2 ice core data!!!

No, you didn't -- you posted a fraudulent load of bulldust..

And it clearly shows the truth about temperatures being warmer for most of the last 10000 years!!!

Afraid not, Tommy -- all you keep on doing is posting up more crap.

And if you look at the Antarctic ice core data over the last half a million years, you will see that if the previous cycles shown are continued, then we are due to be entering another ice age!

Wrong again, Tommy 'no brains'.
Those projections show that's not due for thousands of years yet..
The current 'warming trend' wasn't due to peak for another couple of thousand years, but appears to be running some 1500 years ahead of schedule.

phildidge wrote:

Odyssey of Errors

A temperature reconstruction using the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (“GISP2”) ice core was first published by Prof Kurt Cuffey and Dr Gary Clow in a 1997 paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. Prof Richard Alley of Penn State University also used the record in a 2000 paper. Neither of these papers provided a comparison of GISP2 record with current conditions, as the uncertainties in the ice core proxy reconstruction were too large and the proxy record only extended back to 1855.
The GISP2 ice core record was used in a number of papers in the late 1990s and 2000s that examined changes over the last ice age and the start of the current warm era — the Holocene — around 11,000 years ago. Around 2009, it caught the attention of Dr J Storrs Hall of the Foresight Institute, a technology-focused nonprofit group, who wrote a blog postsuggesting that it disproved the idea that “human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend”.
That post was republished on a climate sceptic blog called Watts Up With That, which followed up with its own version of a GISP2 graph in late 2010 by Dr Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at the Western Washington University. Easterbrook’s graph, shown below, was shared widely across the internet by climate sceptics and is still frequently seen — with many small variations — to this day in discussions on Twitter, blogs and news article comment threads.

Easterbrook’s version of the GISP2-based temperature reconstruction graph, as featured on the Watts Up With That blog.
This graph is misleading for a number of reasons.
First, the x-axis is mislabelled. In fact, it should say “Years before 1950”, rather than “Years before present (2000 AD)”. The GISP2 ice core only extends up to 1855 — 95 years before 1950. This means that none of the modern observational temperature period overlaps with the proxy reconstruction. (Easterbrook’s graph shows the uptick in the final 100 years or so of the record — shown in red — incorrectly indicating that it is the observational temperature period.)
The figure was also featured in another post on the same blog, which conflated Greenland with global temperatures. Any individual location will have significantly more variability than the globe as a whole. A single ice core is also subject to uncertainties around elevation changes and other perturbations to the ice core over time.
As Prof Alley told then-New York Times journalist Andrew Revkin back in 2010:
“The data still contain a lot of noise over short times (snowdrifts are real, among other things). An isotopic record from one site is not purely a temperature record at that site, so care is required to interpret the signal and not the noise.”
The GISP2 reconstruction is fairly old and more recent research has questioned the assumptions made in changing the relationship between temperature and 18O during the Holocene and how to best account for elevation change of the ice sheet at the GISP2 site. The GISP2 reconstruction changes the relationship between 18O and temperatures by a factor of two during the Holocene, while more recent reconstructions keep it constant. Similarly, elevation change influences 18O records. The old GISP2 reconstruction did not take elevation changes into account.
Scientists reconstructing past Greenland temperatures now use estimates from many different ice cores, which reduces the uncertainties associated with any single one and gives a more accurate picture of changes over Greenland as a whole.
Alley made this point explicitly, telling Revkin:

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/06/fact-check-greenland-ice-cores-proxy-past-present-climate-change

Tommy Monk wrote:

The GISP 2 data correlates directly with all the other known warmer periods over the last few thousand years, as well as clear correlation with the recent cool period known as 'the mini ice age'...!


And the Antarctic ice core data clearly shows the cycle between inter glacial warm periods and glacial periods... and it shows that we are due to start into a glacial cold period now after 10000 years of an inter glacial warm period...!


Anyone can look up this data in graph form, and see for themselves... fleakeeper and dodge can deny it all they like, but their denials are inconsequential and meaningless waffle...!!!

smelly-bandit wrote:climate chnage cultist : no such thing as god because i cant see him

also climate change cultist : what do you mean you dont believe in my invisible carbon footprint that i just made up??

smelly-bandit wrote: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.

Lurker wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote: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.

Smelly Ass, you are the stupidest human on earth.

Vintage wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Who gives a stuff what Emma Thompson does with her $$millions$$...

She has nothing to do with this current discussion..

Just more mindless deflections from the regular whining right-win, g corporatist shill snowflake contingent on here.

you do talk nonsense sometimes, it has everything to do with the subject. You don't preach one thing to the masses and do the opposite yourself unless you are a hypocrite, some people see her flitting around after admonishing others and think there can't really be a problem then and we'll carry on as normal. What happened to showing an example,

Vintage wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Who gives a stuff what Emma Thompson does with her $$millions$$...

She has nothing to do with this current discussion..

Just more mindless deflections from the regular whining right-win, g corporatist shill snowflake contingent on here.

you do talk nonsense sometimes, it has everything to do with the subject. You don't preach one thing to the masses and do the opposite yourself unless you are a hypocrite, some people see her flitting around after admonishing others and think there can't really be a problem then and we'll carry on as normal. What happened to showing an example,

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vintage wrote:

you do talk nonsense sometimes, it has everything to do with the subject. You don't preach one thing to the masses and do the opposite yourself unless you are a hypocrite, some people see her flitting around after admonishing others and think there can't really be a problem then and we'll carry on as normal. What happened to showing an example,

You really are full of it...

You do realise that nobody outside of Britain even hears of these pointless deflections..

Nobody outside of Britain really cares what some self-indulgent big-mouthed actress or model is saying to get a bit more self promotion.

Most people are more concerned with what they can see happening in the real world around them at this time --  and it shows up with major political parties losing votes, minor parties and nationalist groups gaining traction, climate change activists young-and-old protesting across the planet..

And empty-headed corporate shills such as Tommy, Smelly' and yourself get on here spouting pure shite on subjects you know nothing about,  "shooting the messenger" instead of considering the subject at hand...

Lurker wrote:Smelly, how long have you been an insane asylum escapee?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Lurker wrote:Smelly, how long have you been an insane asylum escapee?

I'm not the one who thinks sending Al gore all my money is going "save the planet"

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

I'm not the one who thinks sending Al gore all my money is going "save the planet"

What the fuck are you smoking,  smellyfucktard   ???

Nobody is sending "all their money" to Al Gore..
Nobody here has anything to do with Al Gore..

You're the only person here who brings Al Gore's name into these discussions.

And --  despite all of the outright lying trolling propaganda you keep on inventing on the run --  Al Gore isn't "making billions" out of climate change..  That's simply your lies running wild..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

I'm not the one who thinks sending Al gore all my money is going "save the planet"

What the fuck are you smoking,  smellyfucktard   ???

Nobody is sending "all their money" to Al Gore..
Nobody here has anything to do with Al Gore..

You're the only person here who brings Al Gore's name into these discussions.

And --  despite all of the outright lying trolling propaganda you keep on inventing on the run --  Al Gore isn't "making billions" out of climate change..  That's simply your lies running wild..

Lurker wrote:Al Gore doesn't exist. LOL Smelly is lost in the '70's.

smelly-bandit wrote:The useless UN has just decided to cash in on the climate change scam, with some "climate change for thee but not for me" preaching.

Considering how much money is in this, I might become an eco warrior like Emma Thompson - Live your life as normal don't give a fuck and still get paid.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:The useless UN has just decided to cash in on the climate change scam, with some "climate change for thee but not for me" preaching.

Considering how much money is in this, I might become an eco warrior like Emma Thompson - Live your life as normal don't give a fuck and still get paid.

Where are all those "$$billions$$" you claim are being generated by your mythical "climate change industry" coming from and going to, Smelly...

You claim that Al Gore is supposedly "earning billions" from somehow running this imagined conspiracy of yours --  he was already a multi-millionaire former-politician when he made a couple of documentaries and co-wrote a book (none of which I've seen..), and does the occasional lecture in support of a couple of his local environmental groups..

He didn't mess up the climate change scene --  that was down to to oil & coal funded lobby groups who see Gore as easy target because of his high profile as an ex-Vice-President and millionaire  --  and people like you, SmellyBum', who are all too ready to parrot those corporate lobbyists' lies free-of-charge.

As for the United Nations --  they are not a business organisation, despite the anti-humanist rubbish you like to claim --  but are funded by their member countries, who then vote on how that money is spent..

As for the usual crappola you and a couple of your braindead denialist compatriots keep on with about Emma Thompson  --  who actually gives a fuck  ?  She has nothing to do with this topic, despite the empty bleatings from you and Vintage..