Jump to content
Guided Missile

Climate Change Watch

Recommended Posts

I've come over all concerned about Greta Thunberg and so, in the interest of balance, I think it may be worth posting good news about the climate. Read all about it:

 

Ski resorts welcome huge dumps of snow ahead of winter

november-snow-Prato-Nevoso-24-Nov-2.jpg?imwidth=1400

Resorts across the Alps, have seen remarkable snow for so early in the season

 

Just for balance, here's an article from The Independent in 2000:

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

 

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

 

Here's a photo to help, Greta. It's white, cold and a pain in the arse to clear off your drive in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come over all concerned about Greta Thunberg and so, in the interest of balance, I think it may be worth posting good news about the climate. Read all about it:

 

Ski resorts welcome huge dumps of snow ahead of winter

november-snow-Prato-Nevoso-24-Nov-2.jpg?imwidth=1400

Resorts across the Alps, have seen remarkable snow for so early in the season

 

Just for balance, here's an article from The Independent in 2000:

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

 

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

 

Here's a photo to help, Greta. It's white, cold and a pain in the arse to clear off your drive in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like graphs

 

1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

 

Don't worry, Greta. In 100 years we'll all be dead...

 

Interesting that you choose a graph which shows the massive peak of the PETM.

 

I'm sure you must already know that this followed a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere, at a much slower rate than at which we are currently pumping it out, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like graphs

 

1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

 

Don't worry, Greta. In 100 years we'll all be dead...

 

Interesting that you choose a graph which shows the massive peak of the PETM.

 

I'm sure you must already know that this followed a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere, at a much slower rate than at which we are currently pumping it out, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like graphs

 

1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

 

Don't worry, Greta. In 100 years we'll all be dead...

And all those milions of years ago sea levels were over 200 metres higher than today.

Out of interest, what is your childrens' view of AGW ?

Edited by badgerx16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like graphs

 

1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

 

Don't worry, Greta. In 100 years we'll all be dead...

And all those milions of years ago sea levels were over 200 metres higher than today.

Out of interest, what is your childrens' view of AGW ?

Edited by badgerx16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that you choose a graph which shows the massive peak of the PETM.

 

I'm sure you must already know that this followed a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere, at a much slower rate than at which we are currently pumping it out, right?

Was it as massive as the current pumping concentration which has increased CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that you choose a graph which shows the massive peak of the PETM.

 

I'm sure you must already know that this followed a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere, at a much slower rate than at which we are currently pumping it out, right?

Was it as massive as the current pumping concentration which has increased CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it as massive as the current pumping concentration which has increased CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm :lol:

 

No, it was much lower. It was released at an average rate of 0.24 Gt per year over 50,000 years.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23646

 

Currently we're emitting around 10 Gt per year and, surprise surprise, the rate of warming over the last 100 or so years is about ten times greater than at any point in the records from which your graph was based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it as massive as the current pumping concentration which has increased CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm :lol:

 

No, it was much lower. It was released at an average rate of 0.24 Gt per year over 50,000 years.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23646

 

Currently we're emitting around 10 Gt per year and, surprise surprise, the rate of warming over the last 100 or so years is about ten times greater than at any point in the records from which your graph was based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the old, "it’s cold this week, therefore global warming must be a myth," line. I like that one.

 

As an avid skier climate change really does concern me. I know ski holidays are hardly the worst of the worlds problems but an average rise of 2 degrees in temperature would put some of my favourite resorts out of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the old, "it’s cold this week, therefore global warming must be a myth," line. I like that one.

 

As an avid skier climate change really does concern me. I know ski holidays are hardly the worst of the worlds problems but an average rise of 2 degrees in temperature would put some of my favourite resorts out of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like graphs

 

1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

 

Don't worry, Greta. In 100 years we'll all be dead...

 

You used a doctored version of the original to show what you wanted. How very GM.

 

blog4_temp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not very long then. Since just before my gran was born.

 

Just shows how relatively quick the warming has happened - what do you think is causing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not very long then. Since just before my gran was born.

 

We can go back 500m years if you like but I dont see the relevance to now.

 

CO2, nitrous oxide and methane are all better insulators than pre-industrial air. Chuck loads of it into the atmosphere as we have done for the past 200 years only and you will get climate change.

 

I've never understood the argument that because natural climate change occurs we shouldnt do anything to stop damaging man made change. Indeed managing man made change now is invaluable preparation if we ever need to deal with the effects of some kind of sudden natural climate event.

Edited by buctootim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it was much lower. It was released at an average rate of 0.24 Gt per year over 50,000 years.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23646

 

Currently we're emitting around 10 Gt per year and, surprise surprise, the rate of warming over the last 100 or so years is about ten times greater than at any point in the records from which your graph was based.

Don't make out you're a scientist and have knowledge that enables you to patronise people that aren't as gullible as you. So, what you're saying is that you have a direct measurement of the rate of warming and greenhouse emissions from over 55 million years ago with a degree of accuracy of a factor of 10 compared to today. No you f***ing don't. Like tree ring data it is all based on proxy data. In fact, that Nature article is based on boron isotope data—a proxy for seawater pH. What a crock of sh!t that paper is and no basis to spend trillions on reducing carbon emissions.

Welcome to the climate cult...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM: "Here is a (doctored) graph of proxy data which proves man made climate change is nonsense".

 

Also GM: "You can't use proxy data to prove man made climate change is real".

 

I know I really should have learned my lesson by now not to bother engaging with him.

Edited by Sheaf Saint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just shows how relatively quick the warming has happened - what do you think is causing it?

 

It was quite cold in the late 1800s. What's caused the rise? A bit of everything. Solar high-energy activity, deforestation, lack of major volcanic activity, emissions. The question is by what degree?

 

I'm more concerned about the next ice age to be honest. Has anybody predicted when that will be yet?

 

 

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm Be very careful where you click! Their main graph has no vertical scale.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/ Of course there is a massive uptick on the right hand side. That's when the measurements are less smoothed.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can go back 500m years if you like but I dont see the relevance to now.

 

CO2, nitrous oxide and methane are all better insulators than pre-industrial air. Chuck loads of it into the atmosphere as we have done for the past 200 years only and you will get climate change.

 

I've never understood the argument that because natural climate change occurs we shouldnt do anything to stop damaging man made change. Indeed managing man made change now is invaluable preparation if we ever need to deal with the effects of some kind of sudden natural climate event.

 

Relevance to now? Only that the world has been a lot hotter in the past, long before all those people were driving around in SUVs.

 

I don't disagree about reducing mad-made effects but these are not the only factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relevance to now? Only that the world has been a lot hotter in the past, long before all those people were driving around in SUVs.

 

I don't disagree about reducing mad-made effects but these are not the only factor.

 

Nobody has said they are but we are quite obviously making things worse. Why people continue to deny this I can never understand.

Edited by Lighthouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Gammon-in-chief Jeremy Clarkson has come round to the existence of Global Warming so its surprising his fellow kippers aren't falling in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Gammon-in-chief Jeremy Clarkson has come round to the existence of Global Warming so its surprising his fellow kippers aren't falling in line.

 

To be fair, Clarkson thinks Brexiters are coffin-dodging idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, Clarkson thinks Brexiters are coffin-dodging idiots.

 

Oh yeah, I get mixed up. And it was Cameron that said they were closet racists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Gammon-in-chief Jeremy Clarkson has come round to the existence of Global Warming so its surprising his fellow kippers aren't falling in line.

 

Even Farage wants to plant a billion trees to help stop it. This is pretty much the only place you can go to find people thick enough to not believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Farage wants to plant a billion trees to help stop it. This is pretty much the only place you can go to find people thick enough to not believe it.

 

I don't know, a lot of American republics seem pretty skeptical. Even when every creditable scientist is pretty much in agreement that we are contributing to a serious climate problem it's all, "who's paying them? Why are they saying this? I'm not falling for this liberal agenda."

 

On the other hand if you tell them the man in the sky told a geriatric to build a wooden boat the size of an oil tanker and round up two of every animal, "hallelujah, praise the lord!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is climate change denial the preserve of right wing nutters? Discuss!

 

This is the bit I find most fascinating. Why is it? Is it to prove what free thinkets they are, whilst running around the internet posting nuggets feed to them by other right wing nutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the bit I find most fascinating. Why is it? Is it to prove what free thinkets they are, whilst running around the internet posting nuggets feed to them by other right wing nutters.

Right wing nutters....:lol:

 

skynews-protester-extinction_4797982.jpg?20191007115847

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People do realise that the entire Universe is a computer simulation, don't they?

When you hear a dolphin sqawking "So long and thanks for all the fish", start to worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right wing nutters....:lol:

 

skynews-protester-extinction_4797982.jpg?20191007115847

 

Christ you must have been racking that bit of gammon in between your ears for ages to come up with that retort!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I was wrong. A recent news article seems to suggest so:

 

Now the Pentagon tells Trump: climate change will destroy us

 

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2040. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Trump administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like I was wrong. A recent news article seems to suggest so:

 

Good try GM. The moment you said 'Looks like I was wrong' everybody realised you were up to no good.:lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC on the 14th January 2020:

_110495262_gettyimages-1151121024.jpg

UK scientists say the recent fires in Australia are a taste of what the world will experience as temperatures rise. Prof Richard Betts from the Met Office Hadley Centre said we are "seeing a sign of what would be normal conditions under a future warming world of 3C". While natural weather patterns have driven recent fires, researchers said it's "common sense" that human-induced heating is playing a role. Last year was Australia's warmest and driest year on record.UK researchers have carried out a rapid analysis of the impact of climate change on the risk of wildfires happening all over the world. Their study looked at 57 research papers published since the last major review of climate science came out in 2013. All the studies in the review showed links between climate change and the increased frequency or severity of fire weather. This is defined as those periods of time which have a higher risk of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and high winds.

The BBC this morning:

_110832157_mediaitem110832156.jpg

Sydney weather: Record rainfall and flooding causes chaos

Emergency services have rescued hundreds of people from flood waters in Sydney, after the city had its wettest few days in 30 years. People in the city have been sharing their footage of dams overflowing, fallen trees and howling winds. More than 100,000 homes remain without power across New South Wales and evacuation orders are in place in some areas. Rain is forecast to continue throughout the week. The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) said on Monday afternoon that the rains had extinguished more than 30 fires over the weekend, calling it "the most positive news we've had in some time". The latest to be declared out is the Gospers Mountain blaze, north-west of Sydney. Since October it has burned 512,000 hectares, and was considered a mega-blaze that was "too big to put out".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your point being?

I'll underline my point and illustrate it with another image:

UK researchers have carried out a rapid analysis of the impact of climate change on the risk of wildfires happening all over the world. Their study looked at 57 research papers published since the last major review of climate science came out in 2013. All the studies in the review showed links between climate change and the increased frequency or severity of fire weather. This is defined as those periods of time which have a higher risk of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and high winds.

 

nintchdbpict000292554267.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
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})