Lots of unusual cold weather around... must be global warming...

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6081919/scotland-weather-cold-freezing-september-snow-record/


https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1339496/UK-weather-forecast-charts-ice-met-office-snow-latest-greenland-temperature-bbc-weather


https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1339330/bbc-weather-forecast-latest-thunderstorm-warning-met-office-autumn-september-2020


And this news for The Alps...


https://planetski.eu/2020/09/24/snow-is-on-the-way-folks/



And this news for Australia...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8764559/Parts-Australia-set-coldest-spring-day-23-years-rain-snow-hit-south-east.html

Neither of us are scientists, tommy, but from what I understand about Climate Change, the melting of the icecaps and rise in temperatures globally (not isolated locales) affects weather in extreme ways. Posting a few reports from Europe and south Australia are hardly disproving what the vast majority of scientists tell us is happening.

Tommy Monk wrote:


https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6081919/scotland-weather-cold-freezing-september-snow-record/


https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1339496/UK-weather-forecast-charts-ice-met-office-snow-latest-greenland-temperature-bbc-weather


https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1339330/bbc-weather-forecast-latest-thunderstorm-warning-met-office-autumn-september-2020


And this news for The Alps...


https://planetski.eu/2020/09/24/snow-is-on-the-way-folks/



And this news for Australia...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8764559/Parts-Australia-set-coldest-spring-day-23-years-rain-snow-hit-south-east.html

SSSHHHH if greta hears you she'll be back on the media having her own meltdown

How DARE you.

Climate is not weather. God, RW'ers are dumb.

Consider me dumb....but isn’t climate change about extreme changes in the weather over the years?

For example, sudden hot spells such as the UK saw in April this year?

That has always happened throughout history.


But if we get a few hot days then the climate change Nazis are all out in force telling us how it's evidence for the global warming type of climate change... But when we get unusual cold weather you don't hear a peep out of them...


And Les... You are rolling out that tired old cliché that 'all the scientists agree' etc, but that is simply not true!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:


That has always happened throughout history.


But if we get a fermw hot days then the climate change Nazis are all out in force telling us how it's evidence for the global warming type of climate change... But when we get unusual cold weather you don't hear a peep out of them...


And Les... You are rolling out that tired old cliché that 'all the scientists agree' etc, but that is simply not true!!!

Climate change isn’t about only hot weather though???

Unusually cold weather can also be evidence of climate change -- that's why climate change is a more accurate term than global warming.

Warm air currents from the south are becoming energetic enough to push into the Arctic Circle, just as they form a "dome" over the south central U.S. that keeps cold air out. And when those currents press into the Arctic, they displace cold air southward, causing cold snaps where they weren't seen before. For example, in Florida, where a freak ice storm years ago left oranges that were ripe for picking encased in ice.

In a nutshell -- global warming doesn't mean it won't get cold anymore. It will continue to get cold, but more unpredictably.

These fluctuations and events have always happened!

Tommy Monk wrote:


These fluctuations and events have always happened!

Well if that’s the case and you’re right, then perhaps the planet has always experienced climate change?

Exactly what I'm saying!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:


Exactly what I'm saying!!!

Then why are you arguing against climate change if you agree that the world has always had climate change?

Tommy Monk wrote:

That has always happened throughout history.


But if we get a few hot days then the climate change Nazis are all out in force telling us how it's evidence for the global warming type of climate change... But when we get unusual cold weather you don't hear a peep out of them...


And Les... You are rolling out that tired old cliché that 'all the scientists agree' etc, but that is simply not true!!!

Reread, tommy - vast majority of scientists.

But tommy knows better cause news says the UK and Australia had some very cold weather, right?

As mentioned, cold weather is more indicative OF climate change than not.

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Exactly what I'm saying!!!

Then why are you arguing against climate change if you agree that the world has always had climate change?

The argument isn't there. What the climate change deniers are really arguing is that the high carbon input from industry and automobiles (ie, capitalists) into the atmosphere is causing climate change. They perceive that climate change is an invention of the left so as to tighten the regulation of industry.

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Exactly what I'm saying!!!

Then why are you arguing against climate change if you agree that the world has always had climate change?

I'm not...

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

That has always happened throughout history.


But if we get a few hot days then the climate change Nazis are all out in force telling us how it's evidence for the global warming type of climate change... But when we get unusual cold weather you don't hear a peep out of them...


And Les... You are rolling out that tired old cliché that 'all the scientists agree' etc, but that is simply not true!!!

Reread, tommy - vast majority of scientists.

But tommy knows better cause news says the UK and Australia had some very cold weather, right?

As mentioned, cold weather is more indicative OF climate change than not.

It's not even the vast majority who agree...


Try again!

Icelands Okjokull glacier only came into existence 700 years ago, coincidentally at the same time as the 'little ice age' started...


Declared 'dead' a few years ago, after we have come out of this 700 year period of cold, known as 'the little ice age'...


Hailed by global warming nazis as proof of man made climate change/global warming...


When all it really is, is a return to the longer term normal that we had before the start of this 700 year long colder spell known as 'the little ice age'.


Maybe if we get another bit of a cold spell for a while, and this glacier reforms because of it, then Les will start to tell us that this is actually because of global warming...!?


Although the same argument has been used already for its demise...


Maybe it was only born 700 years ago due to global warming back then that caused 700 years of the cold period known as 'the little ice age'...!?


It's hard to tell with lefty numpties... Cos they like to use all opposing arguments in favour of whatever bullshit they are trying to promote at any time they choose... Regardless of how ridiculously contradictory they sound ..

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

That has always happened throughout history.


But if we get a few hot days then the climate change Nazis are all out in force telling us how it's evidence for the global warming type of climate change... But when we get unusual cold weather you don't hear a peep out of them...


And Les... You are rolling out that tired old cliché that 'all the scientists agree' etc, but that is simply not true!!!

Reread, tommy - vast majority of scientists.

But tommy knows better cause news says the UK and Australia had some very cold weather, right?

As mentioned, cold weather is more indicative OF climate change than not.

It's not even the vast majority who agree...


Try again!

According to various sources it is: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

But tommy knows best

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



It's not even the vast majority who agree...


Try again!

According to various sources it is: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

But tommy knows best

the last nasa report I read claimed the caps had grown

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



It's not even the vast majority who agree...


Try again!

According to various sources it is: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

But tommy knows best

According to some who agree you mean...

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Exactly what I'm saying!!!

Then why are you arguing against climate change if you agree that the world has always had climate change?

I'm not...

No, you argue that climate change is natural and that the current, faster-than-ever-recorded climate change we're seeing now isn't man-made.

Because you think that despite pumping 35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year into the atmosphere (more than 35 times more than volcanic activity), for decades, we haven't changed the composition of the atmosphere. That somehow, adding 2,000 billion metric tonnes of a gas to the atmosphere over less than three centuries isn't going to change the atmosphere.

Either that or you don't believe carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, even though that discovery was made about 160 years ago.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



It's not even the vast majority who agree...


Try again!

According to various sources it is: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

But tommy knows best

According to some who agree you mean...

Do you have evidence that the vast majority do not agree?

Where is your evidence of anything...!?


https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I'm not...

No, you argue that climate change is natural and that the current, faster-than-ever-recorded climate change we're seeing now isn't man-made.

Because you think that despite pumping 35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year into the atmosphere (more than 35 times more than volcanic activity), for decades, we haven't changed the composition of the atmosphere. That somehow, adding 2,000 billion metric tonnes of a gas to the atmosphere over less than three centuries isn't going to change the atmosphere.

Either that or you don't believe carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, even though that discovery was made about 160 years ago.

Have you heard of 'the little ice age'...?


You do know that most of the last 10,000 years have been as warm or warmer than it is now, don't you...!?

This is the sort of loaded global warming waffle that I'm talking about...


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54278988



The giant sequoia trees have been there for millions of years... Proving that it is completely normal for this region of Earth to have the climatic conditions that we are seeing today regarding wildfires.



Only a complete idiot would try to say that the scientific evidence of millions of years of evolution of these giant sequoia trees, and them being there in this region of the planet, is somehow inconsistent with this same region being prone to large-scale and regular wildfires as normal...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:



Where is your evidence of anything...!?


https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

A single link from a RW biased institurtion does not disprove the plethora of evidence suggesting the opposite. I already gave you one link, I could post a dozen more from non-partisan sources.

You apparently think the majority of scientists are idiots (even if it isn't 97%, it is certainly a majority). On what qualification do you stand to assert such nonsense?

Did you even read the link?


It explains where the 97% claim came from and shows it is complete bullshit!

this is why I hate links, people just end up discussing sources not their own opinion.

And it's not even a majority either.

A month ago, Death Valley California registered its hottest-ever temperature recorded -- 130 F, or about 54.4 C. So while perhaps the UK has had some cooler weather recently, perhaps we should look at the other 99.5 percent of the world's land area when we look at global warming?

Perhaps we should stop calling it “global warming” and call it “earth weather changes”?

Or something more catchy...?

eddie wrote:Perhaps we should stop calling it “global warming” and call it “earth weather changes”?

Or something more catchy...?

Hahaha, I know what you mean. Global warming makes some people think that every place will get uniformally warmer and warmer. Actually, warming can trigger mechanisms in the ocean and air currents that make some places colder, at least for a while.

The film The Day After Tomorrow, while being a bad representation of the science, was about how the North Atlantic Current could become disrupted by warming and allow much of North America and Europe to become way colder than they are now.

Ben Reilly wrote:A month ago, Death Valley California registered its hottest-ever temperature recorded -- 130 F, or about 54.4 C. So while perhaps the UK has had some cooler weather recently, perhaps we should look at the other 99.5 percent of the world's land area when we look at global warming?

How far back do these 'recorded temperatures' go...?


Compared to the actual amount of time that there has been the existence of the region you call "death valley California"...?

140 years. Then of course, there's also the information provided through indirect evidence like tree rings, ice cores, etc.

And really, the records have nothing to do with the fact that while some places experience unusual cold snaps these days, the overall average temperature of the atmosphere and ocean is going up and up.

You obviously know nothing about what the ice core data from GISP2 and Vostok actually tells us...

Tommy Monk wrote:



You obviously know nothing about what the ice core data from GISP2 and Vostok actually tells us...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

inmyopinion wrote:this is why I hate links, people just end up discussing sources not their own opinion.

"Opinions are like arseholes -- everybody has one !"
Your opinions and Tommy's are both as worthless as the two drongoes spouting them...

Climate chage is real..
The science behind it is real; the facts are undeniable.

Your ongoing lies are disgusting, stupid and trite..

I wouldn't wipe my arse with your opinions, nor Tommy's...

Climate is always changing you twat!


We have just come out of a 700 year cool period known as the 'mini ice age"... So it is going to be maybe as warm for a while as it was before the 700 year 'little ice age' started!!!


Little Ice Age - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Little_Ice_A...
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.


Although it was -20C in Aberdeenshire last couple of nights... And hardly been above 0C over the whole of UK last few days...

Tommy, do you never get bored of repeating the same old shit?

Because I certainly get bored of pointing out that the so-called "Little Ice Age" has nothing to do with global climate change, since it was a regional event.

I get bored of pointing out that while the climate is of course constantly changing, the overwhelming evidence says that we're causing it to change more rapidly than ever before.

And I get bored of pointing out that nobody said global warming means it's never going to get cold anywhere, ever again.

'Wolfie wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:this is why I hate links, people just end up discussing sources not their own opinion.

"Opinions are like arseholes --  everybody has one !"
Your opinions and Tommy's are both as worthless as the two drongoes spouting them...

Climate chage is real..
The science behind it is real;  the facts are undeniable.

Your ongoing lies are disgusting, stupid and trite..

I wouldn't wipe my arse with your opinions, nor Tommy's...

Wolf, this is the first time you’ve posted since November so I’m wondering if you saw this thread:

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t29510-our-friend-vic-has-passed-away

I’m thinking you didn’t, as I cannot imagine anyone ignoring the untimely death of a fellow poster.

eddie wrote:I’m thinking you didn’t, as I cannot imagine anyone ignoring the untimely death of a fellow poster.

Wolf was discussing climate change on an appropriate thread, not the demise of another poster.  Having his degree in agricultural science, Wolf is probably the most knowledgeable on the subject of climate.  I am delighted to see Wolf posting, if only one time.

News gets around about Victor's death.  It's all over.  Vic was not just a citizen of here, but of all of forumotion.  He owned and operated Speak Freely for years.  Perhaps Wolf has said his piece elsewhere.  Respectfully...it's not our business.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I’m thinking you didn’t, as I cannot imagine anyone ignoring the untimely death of a fellow poster.

Wolf was discussing climate change, not the demise of another poster.  Having his degree in agricultural science, Wolf is probably the most knowledgeable on the subject of climate.  I am delighted to see Wolf posting, if only one time.

News gets around about Victor's death.  It's all over.  Vic was not just a citizen of here, but of all of forumotion.  He owned and operated Speak Freely for years.  Perhaps Wolf has said his piece elsewhere.  Respectfully...it's not our business.

Well, actually he was discussing how stupid Tommy was but that’s beside the point.

I merely pointed out that he might have missed it. I’m sure you’ll agree that he may have.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Wolf was discussing climate change, not the demise of another poster.  Having his degree in agricultural science, Wolf is probably the most knowledgeable on the subject of climate.  I am delighted to see Wolf posting, if only one time.

News gets around about Victor's death.  It's all over.  Vic was not just a citizen of here, but of all of forumotion.  He owned and operated Speak Freely for years.  Perhaps Wolf has said his piece elsewhere.  Respectfully...it's not our business.

Well, actually he was discussing how stupid Tommy was but that’s beside the point.

I merely pointed out that he might have missed it. I’m sure you’ll agree that he may have.

People have diverse ways, and places, of grieving. I only know that it's not our business to comment on another's way of lamenting.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Wolf was discussing climate change, not the demise of another poster.  Having his degree in agricultural science, Wolf is probably the most knowledgeable on the subject of climate.  I am delighted to see Wolf posting, if only one time.

News gets around about Victor's death.  It's all over.  Vic was not just a citizen of here, but of all of forumotion.  He owned and operated Speak Freely for years.  Perhaps Wolf has said his piece elsewhere.  Respectfully...it's not our business.

Well, actually he was discussing how stupid Tommy was but that’s beside the point.

I merely pointed out that he might have missed it. I’m sure you’ll agree that he may have.

People have diverse ways, and places, of grieving.  I only know that it's not our business to comment on another's way of lamenting.

I didn’t comment on his “way of lamenting” though, did I?
I pointed out a thread I thought he may have missed. You do seem to be rather defensive about it, Quill.

If he saw the thread, the decent thing would have been to say something, anything. If he didn't see it, fair enough, but let's not pretend he saw it but is so gutted that he can't bring himself to say anything. That's ridiculous.

Tommy Monk wrote:



Climate is always changing you twat!


We have just come out of a 700 year cool period known as the 'mini ice age"... So it is going to be maybe as warm for a while as it was before the 700 year 'little ice age' started!!!


Little Ice Age - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Little_Ice_A...
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.


Although it was -20C in Aberdeenshire last couple of nights... And hardly been above 0C over the whole of UK last few days...

Hi Tommy hope you keeping well .still confusing climate and local weather i see  

Ben Reilly wrote:If he saw the thread, the decent thing would have been to say something, anything. If he didn't see it, fair enough, but let's not pretend he saw it but is so gutted that he can't bring himself to say anything. That's ridiculous.

We shouldn't pretend anything. Grieving is such a sensitive subject that it shouldn't be used in 'shaming' someone...least of all should it be brought into a thread about climate change.