The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[banjo]

You have not even worked out that he is in fact a she. I keep telling you to read what peoplee post.

Monckton's suggestion that we "burn" CO2 is nonsense. It goes downhill from there.

You told me not to reply to you because your brainier apparently, I will edit the post.
Monktons sum shows we have to go for 33 years of no co2 pollution, no cars, no power stations, no nothing around the world to drop one degree.
You spelt people wrong in yours.

 

[bovrill]

You spelt people wrong in yours.

You've just given the ringpull a good tug there on your can of worms!

I'm not sure why I keep reading this thread , @Old McDonald, you have more patience than me!

 

[dstudent]

Al gore got a Nobel peace prise for that film, frightening people to death !
Dc student is used to getting her own way on this subject, doesn't like an alternative view.
Another vid to Wind em up, Lord monkton thus time demonstrating a small sum on a blackboard that shows the stupidity of it all.

it not about me not getting my own way, it is about you getting your information from non-entity such as rent a gob Lord Muck, now once againt there is a reason why we do not get our data and info from youtube before first al least double check it.
I will defy you to find any data from IPCC stating an increase of 7f or 13c as a projection for the next 100 years. And that is just for starter. Lord Muck is famous for his rubbish and general lies don t you know?, that is why he can only go to FOX.
My only requirments for you was and as always been check your sources, bring data, I really do not care what you believe or not, i made my opinion very clear early on, if you have even read it, I do not discard anything a priori. I question everything, I have studied with some of the finest and knowledgable people you can possible find, I know how the earth processes work because I studied them, I collected data, I went to the fields, I read research papers from litterally tons of sources,
this is not me getting my own way, this is me telling you get your facts right, bring data, bring unrefutable real data from scientists, researchers etc etc, and I might even listen to you. what you do is just click on youtube, clips that are aligned to your way of thinking and that is it, I can play that game, but that would not be right (maybe fun, but not right).

And now show me any report from the IPCC staing a 7f or 13c temperature increase in 100 years if you please , Thank you very much

 

[Old McDonald]

You told me not to reply to you because your brainier apparently

No, and yet more confirmation that you either cannot read and understand, or you do not want to. I repeat, if you have a problem with the written word, please say so, and I will make allowances. I do that for other posters that have declared a problem, but you claimed you can learn anything if you "get your head down".

You spelt people wrong in yours.

Ya dee da de da de. You put thus instead of this, but I did not make a fuss about it, because it is completely irrelevant. We all fail to strike the correct keys occasionally.

As I said, Monckton's contribution went downhill from when he claimed we burnt CO2.

Your videos do not wind me up, virtually nothing does these days. If you ever live to reach my age you too will find that hairs up your nose, on your ears, and even encroaching onto your lips (you have seen old greyback gorillas I presume?) are slightly more annoying than people posting on forums. Forums are a place to spend a little of one's free time, usually to learn in my case, but occasionally to try to steer other readers and particiapants away from misinformation such as is provided by YouTube.

I suppose you did not take in my post #515.

 

[Old McDonald]

I'm not sure why I keep reading this thread , @Old McDonald, you have more patience than me!

By the time you complete your beekeeping courses and watch your bees for a while, you too will become more patient. Angling is another good way to learn patience, but ageing is the best way. Everyone I can think of who has annoyed me earlier in my life is now dead. There is a certain satisfaction in that.

 

[Osca]

Everyone I can think of who has annoyed me earlier in my life is now dead. There is a certain satisfaction in that.

 

[Osca]

The older you get, the less well that works. Unless you play an active part in creating the statistics...

 

[linga]

You told me not to reply to you because your brainier apparently, I will edit the post.
Monktons sum shows we have to go for 33 years of no co2 pollution, no cars, no power stations, no nothing around the world to drop one degree.
You spelt people wrong in yours.

so you agree that if we remove CO2 from the atmosphere that the temperature will drop yet if we add CO2 you say it wont rise and isnt rising ?

 

[banjo]

Do any of you 4 above think the data has been changed, or not, simple question.

 

[jendan]

I know I know , but for once i wanted to take the easy way out, i just wanted to put some videos on, as it seams to pass for scientific research on this thread. Al Gore might be a bit dramatic, I think he has mellowed down a bit nowdays, I think at the beginning there was an urgency to bring this out to the public, out of only the academic and scientific sphera, rightly or wrongly (and we might not like his delivery, but the data is correct), wherever one might stand on the man made or not debate, there are processes that are happening, which will influence mankind'existece on this planet, in the very near future. Understanding these processes is essential for man' survival.
and I will be taking my sandals off now and go hug a tree or read the latest IPCC report, and get grants. apprently this is all I do.

You state "in the very near future". So how long in actual years?

 

[banjo]

so you agree that if we remove CO2 from the atmosphere that the temperature will drop yet if we add CO2 you say it wont rise and isnt rising ?

If you think 0.015ppmilion is doing a lot, your nuts

 

[linga]

If you think 0.015ppmilion is doing a lot, your nuts

But you do agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will raise temperatures.

 

[Old McDonald]

The older you get, the less well that works. Unless you play an active part in creating the statistics...

No. The older I get, the better it works. If I die it ceases to work.

 

[Old McDonald]

Do any of you 4 above think the data has been changed, or not, simple question.

Which data? Simple question.

 

[Old McDonald]

If you think 0.015ppmilion is doing a lot, your nuts

I have asked more than once before, but I will be like Robert the Bruce's spider - where do you get this 0.015ppm from? Simple question.

No need to be offensive to Linga. He only asked a simple question.

 

[Old McDonald]

You state "in the very near future". So how long in actual years?

I will not attempt to answer on behalf of dstudent, but increasing soil temperatures have already had an effect. I have previously posted about this.

As are rising sea levels - primarily through salinity affecting agricultural land and acquifers.

 

[Paddington]

Can anyone explain how the projected average temperatures in 50 years, accurate to 0.1C are calculated ?
The Met.Office with all its supercomputers can only forecast with 3 days according to them with accuracy of say +/-3C and surprisingly they have stopped giving long term forecasts.


(Waiting for someone to say but weather is completely different to climate)

 

[banjo]

Here is a nice experiment showing co2 holds heat, I'm not an idiot you know.
I just think the co2 level is nor far of natural levels and will even out through increased plant growth and lower temp lower co2.
There is a plant in one box, not on the other, the temp is higher in the box without the plant thus the plant is taking in the co2 and reducing temp.while growing more in the process.
Simple science!

 

[Old McDonald]

Can anyone explain how the projected average temperatures in 50 years, accurate to 0.1C are calculated ?

I do not know, but I am certain it cannot be done. I am certain it cannot be done on even very short timescales, because nobody can predict the future.

With knowledge and past information I think it can be said about many things, if this, this, this and this happens, then probably the result will be X.

 

[linga]

Can anyone explain how the projected average temperatures in 50 years, accurate to 0.1C are calculated ?
The Met.Office with all its supercomputers can only forecast with 3 days according to them with accuracy of say +/-3C and surprisingly they have stopped giving long term forecasts.


(Waiting for someone to say but weather is completely different to climate)

unfortunately weather is different to climate.
Climate is considered in 30 year timescales ( I believe) so lots of natural variability is smoothed and there will be a range of possible temperatures predicted so no one is predicting that the average temperature will be precisely 14.61 or whatever.. Its just that statistically 14.61 is the median ( I think) of the range. Not that I know for sure as I am not a statistician but its something along those lines.
Its all based on probability.