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

[phillipe]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-temperature-rise-warming-reefs-a7648386.html

a comment from said article,
It's amazing that there are those who still believe that today's temperatures or changes are unique and that any negative impact today is somehow irreversible - or that it has never happened before. The gradual temperature decline over the last 10,000 years has included periods significantly higher and lower than today, never mind the negative 12 degree drops in the 90,000 glacial years before that.

Had it been even relatively rare over those timescales for bleached corals never to recover there would today be no coral at all off the Australian coast.

Never mind that there are reports from "surprised" divers and tour operators on how little bleaching there is (5% vs "scientists 50%) when they actually view the reef for themselves after reading of these "scientists" reports of massive bleaching.

 

[Cowmangav]

a comment from said article,
It's amazing that there are those who still believe that today's temperatures or changes are unique and that any negative impact today is somehow irreversible - or that it has never happened before. The gradual temperature decline over the last 10,000 years has included periods significantly higher and lower than today, never mind the negative 12 degree drops in the 90,000 glacial years before that.

Had it been even relatively rare over those timescales for bleached corals never to recover there would today be no coral at all off the Australian coast.

Never mind that there are reports from "surprised" divers and tour operators on how little bleaching there is (5% vs "scientists 50%) when they actually view the reef for themselves after reading of these "scientists" reports of massive bleaching.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...oral-reef-has-died-from-bleaching-says-report

 

[phillipe]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...oral-reef-has-died-from-bleaching-says-report

yes quite correct ,your cutting and pasting skill is coming along nicely,warming cooling has been happening for 1000s of years,britain was in the grip of an ice age 10000 years ago,man is not helping at all,but some of the data is from too short a timescale,

 

[Old McDonald]

,man is not helping at all,but some of the data is from too short a timescale,

Unfortunately all of the data is from too short a timescale, but that is all we have. There are no sufficiently accurate records from even 200 years ago. It appears 1880 is the starting point for most time referenced charts, even though there were some global figures prior to this point. I gather the earlier data was not sufficiently widespread across the planet to give accurate information.

What has happened in the past, even if it is repeated over the next tens of thousands of years, is of no importance compared with what is going to happen in the relatively immediate future - say your lifetime, through to the lifetimes of the next two generations after that. I do not know if you have grandchildren, I do. Beyond them, whilst I care, I do not know who they will be, so not quite so high on the list of caring what happens.

As I have posted only fairly recently on this thread I have been convinced that man is responsible for the current warming. Ironically this occured through the misinformation and inability of the presenters to understand the charts they highlight, in the numerous videos linked by banjo.

Do you think we can wait for even another 100 or so years to double the amount of data before deciding what is happening? I do not. I am happy that the world acts on what is known now.

 

[phillipe]

Unfortunately all of the data is from too short a timescale, but that is all we have. There are no sufficiently accurate records from even 200 years ago. It appears 1880 is the starting point for most time referenced charts, even though there were some global figures prior to this point. I gather the earlier data was not sufficiently widespread across the planet to give accurate information.

What has happened in the past, even if it is repeated over the next tens of thousands of years, is of no importance compared with what is going to happen in the relatively immediate future - say your lifetime, through to the lifetimes of the next two generations after that. I do not know if you have grandchildren, I do. Beyond them, whilst I care, I do not know who they will be, so not quite so high on the list of caring what happens.

As I have posted only fairly recently on this thread I have been convinced that man is responsible for the current warming. Ironically this occured through the misinformation and inability of the presenters to understand the charts they highlight, in the numerous videos linked by banjo.

Do you think we can wait for even another 100 or so years to double the amount of data before deciding what is happening? I do not. I am happy that the world acts on what is known now.

but there is the rub,the world is not acting for its own good,the industrilists will not be happy in their greed to dig up everything to burn and bury everything in an effort that every living being has a car ,washing machine ,phone and every other gadget known to man,

 

[Pilatus]

Global warming or not , fossil fuels are bound to run out eventually perhaps sooner than we would like to think(Looking at "Flightradar 24.com" just makes one ask the question, "how sustainable is this level of jet fuel consumption") .I just hope governments around the world are pumping as much money via grants etc to universities etc ,in to finding alternatives to fossil fuels ,as they are into researching global warming other wise human civilisation is doomed.

 

[renewablejohn]

My understanding was they burn coal but in dust form which has been ground to that state using giant ball mills?

Although some power stations use coal dust it can be very explosive and the safer option is to use as a coal slurry allowing coal to be pumped through pipelines.

 

[Cowmangav]

Perhaps skip the lengthy introduction, but an interesting summary of where we are now, and what mitigation is underway. A little cheer mixed in.

 

[banjo]

The brilliant dr easterbrook shows how raw data exposes the truth of climate change, brill vid

 

[Dave645]

The brilliant dr easterbrook shows how raw data exposes the truth of climate change, brill vid

Your right it's brilliant at making stupid points that have been exposed as false many times. Including graphs only showing data from 1986 which use high temps that year to hide the rises from the graph.....

I enjoyed the bit where he says co2 cannot be at fault as it always follows high temperatures. And that in only 1.3% of the time does it lead the higher temperatures. It skips over co2 levels are currently man made so not natural so cannot be ruled out by old natural trends, if I had my guess I would say it's more likely the 1.3%....of the time.

It would not bother me if we predicted a disaster and tried to stop it and it never happened. (Which is the goal) What I would not like is, if we predict a disaster did nothing and it did happen.....
Are you so convinced your right, that your willing to do nothing and you want to chuck in with Donald trump. Even if there was even a small chance, that doing so was selling us all down the river, for some short term savings.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/world-meteorological-organization-climate-report-2017

 

[Cowmangav]

The brilliant dr easterbrook shows how raw data exposes the truth of climate change, brill vid

He brilliantly forecast global cooling from 2010. How's that working out then? ( see my earlier posts perhaps).
His arithmetic is well dodgy , but to claim CO2 is up by only 0.08% or whatever is just pathetic.
The rest of the atmosphere is inactive regarding heat absorption, and CO2 is up circa 50% from pre-industrial levels ( 275 to 405 ppm).

 

[Cowmangav]

CO2 at 409.56 ppm on 27th March 2017, Mauna Loa.
I would guess it will break 410 ppm next month before the annual decline sets in.

 

[Old McDonald]

The brilliant dr easterbrook shows how raw data exposes the truth of climate change, brill vid

The man just tells so many lies, in additon to not being able to understand his charts - like almost every other presenter in the links you post. How anybody can be take in by these people amazes me.

Keep up the good work. You have converted me to being a believer in AGW. I am sure you will convert many more. I know this is not your intention, but it is the outcome.

I have also been having another look at the 55 years' temperature cycle theory of Yoshimura, just in case he is correct, and see that it would fit in nicely with his theory to have the temperature minima at 1910 and 1965 (perhaps not precisely, but very close) so that the next temperature minimum is due in 2020. We would therefore have to be very close to the minimum temperatures now. Obviously we are not - unless you can provide me with the oft requested info of somewhere that temperatures are falling.

You absolutely must buy yourself a thermometer and record your own figures. I will believe them.

 

[Cowabunga]

He brilliantly forecast global cooling from 2010. How's that working out then? ( see my earlier posts perhaps).
His arithmetic is well dodgy , but to claim CO2 is up by only 0.08% or whatever is just pathetic.
The rest of the atmosphere is inactive regarding heat absorption, and CO2 is up circa 50% from pre-industrial levels ( 275 to 405 ppm).

Actually he said that its concentration had increased by 0.008%, which is probably correct, although I haven't checked his maths. As he said, 50% of bugger-all is still bugger-all. What some people would have you believe is that CO2 has increased by some huge percentage, which it has in and of its own. But since it makes up, what, something like 0.04% of the atmosphere, and increase from 0.03% at some time in the past can be seen as a large percentage, yet its concentration in the total atmosphere, the increase in its concentration in all gases may well only be the 0.008% [1/8000th%] increase shown in that video.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[Cowabunga]

The man just tells so many lies, in additon to not being able to understand his charts - like almost every other presenter in the links you post. How anybody can be take in by these people amazes me.

Keep up the good work. You have converted me to being a believer in AGW. I am sure you will convert many more. I know this is not your intention, but it is the outcome.

I have also been having another look at the 55 years' temperature cycle theory of Yoshimura, just in case he is correct, and see that it would fit in nicely with his theory to have the temperature minima at 1910 and 1965 (perhaps not precisely, but very close) so that the next temperature minimum is due in 2020. We would therefore have to be very close to the minimum temperatures now. Obviously we are not - unless you can provide me with the oft requested info of somewhere that temperatures are falling.

You absolutely must buy yourself a thermometer and record your own figures. I will believe them.

That is unfair. The man understands perfectly what he is showing. Unfortunately old age has caught up with him and his presentation is not as slick as it should be. He's only human and would have probably put up a more impressive presentation 20 years ago.

 

[Cowabunga]

He brilliantly forecast global cooling from 2010. How's that working out then? ( see my earlier posts perhaps).
His arithmetic is well dodgy , but to claim CO2 is up by only 0.08% or whatever is just pathetic.
The rest of the atmosphere is inactive regarding heat absorption, and CO2 is up circa 50% from pre-industrial levels ( 275 to 405 ppm).

Until a few months ago nobody would have reasonably disputed that he was correct about the temperature from 1999 not having warmed. That was until someone once again decided that the data was wrong [because it didn't agree with their hypothesis] and that the measured data from the sea must have been under measuring the 'true' temperature, so they adjusted the temperature readings to suit the results they desired to have, yet again. There's no disputing that. Its too fresh. It happened last year. Now all the alarmists are happy that the figures show a consistent rise once more even though the actual collected data showed a fairly flat graph with no discernible rise. So now we have an accelerating rising curve that makes them and you happy in your anxiety once more.

 

[RushesToo]

Observation - I am on average comfortably warm, a statistician is also on average comfortably warm with his head in an oven and his feet in a freezer. Extremes hurt and kill.

Take from it what you will, but dark colours on these charts are extremes. Those significantly different to the average. These are annual totals. So don't forget the statistician, these annual totals could hide a glorious spring and a filthy summer.

If you bothered to get this far, the browns are water, the reds are temperature and each picture is a year.

You can play with this yourself here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate-anomalies/#?tab=climateAnomalies

My observations are from charts are that there are more frequent extremes between seasons. My personal experience is that within seasons there are also more extremes. By looking at these charts you can see that I have seen a number of years, but my geography has also changed so it is in no way proof of any kind. You need to make your own minds up.

 

[Cowmangav]

Actually he said that its concentration had increased by 0.008%, which is probably correct, although I haven't checked his maths. As he said, 50% of bugger-all is still bugger-all. What some people would have you believe is that CO2 has increased by some huge percentage, which it has in and of its own. But since it makes up, what, something like 0.04% of the atmosphere, and increase from 0.03% at some time in the past can be seen as a large percentage, yet its concentration in the total atmosphere, the increase in its concentration in all gases may well only be the 0.008% [1/8000th%] increase shown in that video.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

There is basic physics. Gasses of similar atoms DO NOT absorb heat of the wavelength coming back up from earth. Thus the huge bulk of the atmosphere does not trap heat - N2 and O2.
CO2 DOES trap the heat - not on the way down from the sun - because the sun is so hot - it's of a different wavelength.

THEREFORE what does matter is the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. Even then there needs to be an increase in water vapour caused by the modest heating of CO2 to get to the problematic heating that is expected.
But currently CO2 levels are the highest for 750,000 years , and still rising rapidly.
The highest level , naturally occurring ( briefly ) in that period was 300 ppm.

The bulk of the heating is going into the oceans , and not into the atmosphere or the land.
Heating has now reached about a depth of 700 feet in the ocean.
The bleached coral didn't read a revised temperature and decide to die, it just got poached.Period.

 

[Courier]

The bleached coral didn't read a revised temperature and decide to die, it just got poached.Period.

Fake news, Fake statistics, Fake coral bleaching - someone tipped a tanker load of hypochlorite into the sea [emoji36]

Anyone who believes that humanity is not having adverse effect on this, our only habitable planet needs their head testing.

I was at a classic car convention last week (Beach Hop) and one of the immediate things that hit me was the smell of petrol fumes compared to modern fuel injected / catalytic converter cars. Had the motor industry not been forced ( and yes it was forced by environmentalists and thus legislation) to clean its act up then breathing in a city would be damned near impossible.
Petrol fumes were an easily identifiable tip of a pollution iceberg from humanities industrialisation by use of fossil fuels.
The acid rain from the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire coal power stations which decimated Norwegian forests were another but some small minded individuals are unable or unwilling to learn from evidence of man made climate interference [emoji83]

 

[Old McDonald]

That is unfair. The man understands perfectly what he is showing. Unfortunately old age has caught up with him and his presentation is not as slick as it should be. He's only human and would have probably put up a more impressive presentation 20 years ago.

Why is it unfair? He is older than me I admit, but he is still being asked to present these things and he accepts. If he is too old to do so, why is he being asked? He is repeating what he said 20 years ago - a recent quote from him being "As I (and a number of others) pointed out years ago, the 1915-1945 warming is almost identical to the 1979-2000+ warming, clearing showing that you don’t need any CO2 increase at all to get that kind of warming."

So, the increase in temperature, according to him, in the period leading up to about 1945 was natural, as was the increase in the latter part of the 20th Century. Nothing to do with CO2 at all. Believe that if you will, I do not. CO2 levels were increasing before 1915, not as quickly as now, but neither was the temperature increasing as quickly.

Given the dates of the spikes during the first of these periods, it crossed my mind quite a while ago that perhaps all the munitions used during both world wars added a lot more of the various greenhouse gases than at other periods. Also given the fact that the wars were in progress there were great swathes of the planet where sufficiently numerical, geographical and accurate measurements would not be made. There was an enormous increase in the amount of fossil fuel burnt during those wars too compared with immediately before and afterwards. Just a thought, no scientific data.

He said too (again predictions from when he was considerably younger) that we would enter a cooling phase in about the year 2000 and it would continue for 20 years. He later decided it would continue until about 2035. He along, with other predictors of the 40/55/60 years' cycles, move the timeframe as the temperatures continue to fail to fall as they predict - see the third paragraph of my post #793 above.

Until a few months ago nobody would have reasonably disputed that he was correct about the temperature from 1999 not having warmed.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this. Several of the links given by banjo in this thread admit that the temperature has continued to rise. The charts they present and rely on show this to be so. What the presenters do say is that the temperature has not increased as quickly as towards the end of the 20th Century. I have not heard of anyone disagreeing with the slowing down of the increase, although there could be some who do.

I go back to the challenge I have thrown out to the world - find me a single weather recording station that shows the temperatures have not increased since 1999/2000. I would be happy to find one, and there probably is, but I am not going to go looking.

I would like you too to keep a record of your own temperatures, or a record of the nearest weather station on a daily basis - easy to pick up the historical data and plot the temperatures for your own locality for the last 20 years or so. It will take time that you might not have spare though.

I am truly surprised that modern day farmers do not see weather records as an extremely useful, and even essential, management tool.
I know I do not now grow "broadacre" crops, but I can fairly well predict harvest dates from mean temperatures during the time from flowering to harvest. For example last year I knew from the flowering date that I was going to be later in starting to harvest olives than the previous year. By comparing temperatures I had a fair idea by mid August that it would be the end of October. I was wrong by a day or two (actually began on 26th) but at least I knew well in advance that I would not be harvesting in mid October. Consequently I adjusted my spraying programme dates to suit the later harvest.