Jump to content

Climate Change Watch


Guided Missile

Recommended Posts

I can't remember seeing this anywhere in the news either, doesn't fit does it

 

https://electroverse.net/greenland-just-set-a-new-all-time-record-low-temperature/

 

Measurements are taken at over 20,000 sites every day. Its not surprising or news if one site in one country records a record low on one day, especially a station which has only been there 30 years. What matters is the trend. Here is just a taste - as of March 13, 23 national monthly all-time heat records had been beaten or tied in 2020:

 

January: Norway, South Korea, Angola, Congo Brazzaville, Dominica, Mexico, Indonesia, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Cuba

February: Spain, Antarctica, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, The Bahamas, Switzerland, Maldives, Gambia, Russia, Seychelles

March: Paraguay, Cabo Verde

 

No monthly national cold records have been beaten or tied in 2020.

 

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/eye-of-the-storm/february-2020-earths-2nd-warmest-february-and-3rd-warmest-month-on-record/

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Measurements are taken at over 20,000 sites every day. Its not surprising or news if one site in one country records a record low on one day, especially a station which has only been there 30 years. What matters is the trend. Here is just a taste - as of March 13, 23 national monthly all-time heat records had been beaten or tied in 2020:

 

January: Norway, South Korea, Angola, Congo Brazzaville, Dominica, Mexico, Indonesia, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Cuba

February: Spain, Antarctica, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, The Bahamas, Switzerland, Maldives, Gambia, Russia, Seychelles

March: Paraguay, Cabo Verde

 

No monthly national cold records have been beaten or tied in 2020.

 

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/eye-of-the-storm/february-2020-earths-2nd-warmest-february-and-3rd-warmest-month-on-record/

 

Funny that they do report record highs though, this was all over the news like a rash

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/antarctic-peninsula-setting-heat-records-wont-stand-long/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:? Erm they report both. There have been 22 record national highs so far in 2020 and no national record lows.

 

The record high in Antarctica in February was all over the news, Greenland is a very sensitive area for climate change yet no report of record low at a time when the arctic is supposed to be warming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The record high in Antarctica in February was all over the news, Greenland is a very sensitive area for climate change yet no report of record low at a time when the arctic is supposed to be warming

 

Wether something is in the news or not doesn’t change the science. For a clearer idea of what’s going on best read the science not newspapers. A single record in one place wether high or low doesn’t mean much by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wether something is in the news or not doesn’t change the science. For a clearer idea of what’s going on best read the science not newspapers. A single record in one place wether high or low doesn’t mean much by itself.

 

I don't read newspapers, my whole point about this is the fact that we do not get even close to a balanced argument reported by the media. There are plenty of scientists who believe that climate change is happening but is not the imminent disaster that we keep being told. In no other area of science would a scientist with a different view point be called a denier, the media have taken a side in this and demonise anyone who dares to have an alternative view, this is a hugely complex issue and I think we're a long way from understanding it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this then Sheaf, I know it's difficult but try playing the ball and not the man for a change

 

 

You're right. It is difficult.

 

It's really difficult to NOT play the man when you're talking about such a notoriously dishonest pseudo-scientist as Tony Heller (or Steven Goddard, or whatever the hell his name actually is). He apparently has a degree in geology and has never published any peer reviewed work. Ergo, he's NOT a scientist, and he has been proven to be wrong on so many occasions, he's had more climbdowns than Fireman Sam. He has no credibility in climatology whatsoever.

 

But anyway, let's play the ball here as you requested...

 

So his main contention in this video is that climate scientists cherry pick datasets to make the warming appear worse than it actually is. And how does he go about 'proving' this? By cherry-picking his own data of course...

 

The first graph he directs his ire towards is the one showing US heatwave intensity since 1960, and uses a set of graphs which show that it was higher in the years before this and thus the warming observed since then is misleading. However, these graphs only depict heatwaves on the US mainland (2% of the Earth's surface), and he deliberately doesn't mention the fact that the massive spike around the mid-30s, which then results in a downward trend-line through to 1960, was due to the infamous great Dust Bowl event. It's disingenuous to say the least, and it does not in any way contradict the observed rise in average global temperatures.

 

Then he moves on to US wildfires, and complains that the graph only shows data from 1983, and to counter this he uses a graph depicting a completely different dataset - total acreage burned (i.e. - not just wildfires but all controlled fires as well). This is just straight out fraud, and I'm sorry to say you would have to be a total idiot not to spot this 'error'.

 

Then he goes on about how NOAA hid the satellite data relating to Arctic sea ice extent from before 1979, he says deliberately to avoid showing an upward trend prior to that point. He contends that they had satellite data all the way back to the early 50s, but what he fails to mention is that earlier data was just photographs from which sea ice extent had to be estimated visually. From 1979 onwards, satellite data was gathered using passive microwave data, which made the measurements far more reliable. Lo and behold, the records since this change show a very clear downward trend.

 

All of his arguments could, on the face of it, appear very convincing... if you've already made up your mind that you believe his side of the argument and are willing to ignore a huge wealth of credible evidence to the contrary.

 

Keep 'em coming Scally.

Edited by Sheaf Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't read newspapers, my whole point about this is the fact that we do not get even close to a balanced argument reported by the media. There are plenty of scientists who believe that climate change is happening but is not the imminent disaster that we keep being told. In no other area of science would a scientist with a different view point be called a denier, the media have taken a side in this and demonise anyone who dares to have an alternative view, this is a hugely complex issue and I think we're a long way from understanding it

 

#flatearthsociety

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Can’t be bothered watching an hour and forty of whatever that is, can you summarise?

 

Some renewable energy projects aren't well planned therefore we shouldn't do anything.Anyhow it would be better for the planet if everyone died.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some renewable energy projects aren't well planned therefore we shouldn't do anything.Anyhow it would be better for the planet if everyone died.

 

That's the problem, too many people and it's only going to get worse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost sounds as if we should try and do something about it.
Tbf it is a good point though. Its going to get to a point where it doesn't matter how many green policies there are, the sheer amount of people will ruin things regardless. People don't want to have that conversation though because it goes down a dark road where you either limit child numbers or talk about mass culling. Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbf it is a good point though. Its going to get to a point where it doesn't matter how many green policies there are, the sheer amount of people will ruin things regardless. People don't want to have that conversation though becausebitnfmgoes down a dark road where you either limit child numbers or talk about mass culling.

 

Oh I agree, there’re about a dozen countries out there which need a one child policy for a while but we need to do everything else we can. Long term we need both population control and reduced environmental impact, which means starting now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbf it is a good point though. Its going to get to a point where it doesn't matter how many green policies there are, the sheer amount of people will ruin things regardless. People don't want to have that conversation though becausebitnfmgoes down a dark road where you either limit child numbers or talk about mass culling.

 

More consumers innit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I agree, there’re about a dozen countries out there which need a one child policy for a while but we need to do everything else we can. Long term we need both population control and reduced environmental impact, which means starting now.
Yes but how are people going to dictate to those countries that they can only have one child per family whilst others can do what they like? It's not going to happen is it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I agree, there’re about a dozen countries out there which need a one child policy for a while but we need to do everything else we can. Long term we need both population control and reduced environmental impact, which means starting now.

I'm amazed that this view is given the time of day by so many well meaning people, who are generally rich (in a global sense) and really mean that population control should be applied to the poor. The theory was popularised over two hundred years ago, by, surprise, surprise, an economist. It's known as the Malthusian theory. As you know, I love graphs and here's the one that underpins this immoral philosophy.

0?e=1593043200&v=beta&t=QUFzz9ye2CZsWGejmJ4G6IEvoe2ZO40puZadjIRwTZ8

For those interested, the intellectual great-grandfather of this position was the British economist Thomas Robert Malthus, who in 1798 (in "An Essay on the Principle of Population") and subsequently in 1820 (in "Principles of Economics") compared the principle of our resources’ finiteness to the dynamics of human population growth (the underlying argument, however, we already find in Aristotle’s thinking). Formulated into a mathematical law, Malthus posed it as an inescapable necessity for man to fatefully obey a law of unlimited multiplication, while the resources needed for such "geometric" (“exponential”) growth of mankind do not grow in the same proportions. These develop only "arithmetically" (“linearly”). According to Malthus, such an unrestricted increase means that at some point the available food is no longer sufficient to feed the earth's population, so that frequently corrective events in the form of illnesses, misery, wars, and death must occur that limit the growth of the human population and thus maintain the necessary balance. That he used an economic and sociological theory as a basis for concrete moral judgments, to the effect that poor people are starving and dying for a good reason, has repeatedly brought him strong criticism, so that today he finds himself placed in the line of anti-humanistic thinkers (who at his time, however, had significant political influence: his overpopulation theory led to the “Poor Law Amendment Act” in England of 1834, in which the support of those in need in England experienced massive cuts).

 

This theory is regularly regurgitated by rich countries to impose on poor, most notably India, where it was used in the most inhumane means of social engineering. How did India escape the Malthusian graph? Technology, obviously, as an economist like Malthus is hardly likely to be in a position to foresee what the scientists were capable of. The Green Revolution was a set of research technology transfer initiatives occurring between 1950 and the late 1960s, that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. The initiatives resulted in the adoption of new technologies, including high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals, especially dwarf wheats and rices, in association with chemical fertilizers and agrochemicals, and with controlled water-supply (usually involving irrigation) and new methods of cultivation, including mechanization. All of these together were seen as a 'package of practices' to supersede 'traditional' technology and to be adopted as a whole.

 

In 1961, India was on the brink of mass famine. Norman Borlaug, an agronomist that pioneered the Green Revolution, was invited to India by the adviser to the Indian minister of agriculture Dr. M. S. Swaminathan. Despite bureaucratic hurdles imposed by India's grain monopolies, the Ford Foundation and Indian government collaborated to import wheat seed from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). Punjab was selected by the Indian government to be the first site to try the new crops because of its reliable water supply and a history of agricultural success. India began its own Green Revolution program of plant breeding, irrigation development, and financing of agrochemicals. India soon adopted IR8 – a semi-dwarf rice variety developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) that could produce more grains of rice per plant when grown with certain fertilizers and irrigation. In 1968, Indian agronomist S.K. De Datta published his findings that IR8 rice yielded about 5 tons per hectare with no fertilizer, and almost 10 tons per hectare under optimal conditions. This was 10 times the yield of traditional rice. IR8 was a success throughout Asia, and dubbed the "Miracle Rice". In the 1960s, rice yields in India were about two tons per hectare; by the mid-1990s, they had risen to six tons per hectare. In the 1970s, rice cost about $550 a ton; in 2001, it cost under $200 a ton. India became one of the world's most successful rice producers, and is now a major rice exporter, shipping nearly 4.5 million tons in 2006.Thus India was largely freed from the famine and scientists were largely responsible.

 

Norman Borlaug said of environmental lobbyists:

Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels...if they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

A bit like Lord Duck saying, "on behalf of women everywhere, I'd like to apologise for the feminist movement and admit I belong in the kitchen."

The article was written by Michael Shellenberger, so no nothing like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I read an article the other day saying that the Ozone layer is healing itself now that a massive CFC emission from China has been found and eradicated.

Has there been any discernible effect on climate change given that we've had the best part of a year now with reduced travel and associated emissions?

Yeah, it’s bloody freezing! ;)

I know, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I read an article the other day saying that the Ozone layer is healing itself now that a massive CFC emission from China has been found and eradicated.

Has there been any discernible effect on climate change given that we've had the best part of a year now with reduced travel and associated emissions?

That would be like giving the UKs first vaccine back in November and, 20 minutes later, asking if there had been a discernible drop in fatalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I read an article the other day saying that the Ozone layer is healing itself now that a massive CFC emission from China has been found and eradicated.

Has there been any discernible effect on climate change given that we've had the best part of a year now with reduced travel and associated emissions?

There has been a 7% drop in emissions compared to the previous year but that just means more carbon was added to the atmosphere at a slightly slower rate.

https://www.space.com/co2-concentration-rising-past-alarming-threshold.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whelk said:

TBF it is the thick ones. Sort of dumb cunts who trot things out in a cold snap. Ignorant pub bores really. We all know the sort.

Agreed. Same on the other side too, self righteous arrogant cunts who think they’re superior to everyone else because they believe they’re on the right side of the argument Because that’s what twitter wants them to say,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Turkish said:

Agreed. Same on the other side too, self righteous arrogant cunts who think they’re superior to everyone else because they believe they’re on the right side of the argument Because that’s what twitter wants them to say,

Surely everyone must think they are on the right side of the argument (apart from the floaters in the middle of course). So everyone must display self righteous superiority then. 

How does twitter get people to say things, I'm pretty clueless about Twitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

That would be like giving the UKs first vaccine back in November and, 20 minutes later, asking if there had been a discernible drop in fatalities.

To be fair, I would have expected some sort of impact.  The reduction in air travel alone should have produced a measurable impact.

This article suggest that the airline industry makes up 5% of 'global warming' annually.

Add in the decimation of the cruise industry, reduction in travel etc etc and surely something noticeable should have been measured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

Surely everyone must think they are on the right side of the argument (apart from the floaters in the middle of course). So everyone must display self righteous superiority then. 

How does twitter get people to say things, I'm pretty clueless about Twitter.

Conditioned by social media I think is what they call it. 
 

certainly there seems to be a lot of anger coming out of some people these days.  But then I’d be angry too having to constantly keep a facade to fit in with whatever I’m being conditioned to believe in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Turkish said:

Agreed. Same on the other side too, self righteous arrogant cunts who think they’re superior to everyone else because they believe they’re on the right side of the argument Because that’s what twitter wants them to say,

Yeah those, and anyone with even a basic understanding of the science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Twitter is full of different opinions. Whenever I've looked there's loads of right wing stuff, left wing stuff, climate evangelists, conspiracy theorists, cats, dogs, everything. So is social media conditioning everyone in different ways. There isn't a agreed Twitter position is there?

Edited by Fan The Flames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

But Twitter is full of different opinions. Whenever I've looked there's loads of right wing stuff, left wing stuff, climate evangelists, conspiracy theorists, cats, dogs, everything. So is social media conditioning everyone in different ways. There isn't a agreed Twitter position is there?

People tend to follow other people with the same views, mostly to back up their unconscious bias. 

That's not to say they don't come across lots of opposing views, however they would probably laugh those off as irrational before retreating to the comfort of their timeline which is largely made up of opinions they agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Cat said:

People tend to follow other people with the same views, mostly to back up their unconscious bias. 

That's not to say they don't come across lots of opposing views, however they would probably laugh those off as irrational before retreating to the comfort of their timeline which is largely made up of opinions they agree with.

Exactly, people aren't being conditioned to think the same way, there are thousands of different views out there. People like stuff from one person and ignore the shit from the same person.  People have a set of values and positions on a vast range of subjects and they seek like minded opinions to amplify their views 

I'm certain that peoples view change overtime, just like they always have. This notion that some people only think what they are told to and are trapped into fixed thoughts by having to continually virtue signal on social media is rubbish. So is the idea that it's only left wing liberals on social media signally.

How come the 'free thinkers' are generally right wing and all think the same kind of stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Exactly, people aren't being conditioned to think the same way, there are thousands of different views out there. People like stuff from one person and ignore the shit from the same person.  People have a set of values and positions on a vast range of subjects and they seek like minded opinions to amplify their views 

I'm certain that peoples view change overtime, just like they always have. This notion that some people only think what they are told to and are trapped into fixed thoughts by having to continually virtue signal on social media is rubbish. So is the idea that it's only left wing liberals on social media signally.

How come the 'free thinkers' are generally right wing and all think the same kind of stuff.

I think Turkish may be referring to the virtue signaling/left wing (traditionally) pile on oft seen on Twitter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})