On 30/07/2019 01:51, Keith Harris wrote:
On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:

This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
locked into the system.

Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter :-)

It's an old technique in the 'global warming' industry that's been used
before - and it's about as authoritative as 'hide the decline' was in
its day.

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons. Perhaps NASA should practice what they preach?

JAAMOI, what is the correct level for atmospheric CO2 on which we should
be spending our trillions trying to attain?

--
Spike

On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons.

You've managed to put your finger on a key point. Concern about climate
change is about what happens on human timescales, not geological
timescales. Most children born today - at least in Western countries -
are likely to be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state of the earth in
2100 and for their children out to 2200 is what's vitally important -
food to eat, water to drink and dry land significantly above current sea
level to live.

The difference between human and geological timescales is, let's say, a
million times - it's the same ratio as between 20 seconds and a
lifetime. Will the earth survive? Yes, of course, as it has for the past
4B years. For a significant % of humanity, including your family, the
answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping what is
happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50
million years. Think human timescales!

JGD wrote:

On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better
base for comparisons.

You've managed to put your finger on a key point. Concern about
climate change is about what happens on human timescales, not
geological timescales. Most children born today - at least in Western
countries - are likely to be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state
of the earth in 2100 and for their children out to 2200 is what's
vitally important - food to eat, water to drink and dry land
significantly above current sea level to live.

The difference between human and geological timescales is, let's say,
a million times - it's the same ratio as between 20 seconds and a
lifetime. Will the earth survive? Yes, of course, as it has for the
past 4B years. For a significant % of humanity, including your
family, the answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping
what is happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one
million or 50 million years. Think human timescales!

Indeed. We hear a great deal about 'save the planet' these days. I
understand the sentiment but what is really meant is 'save the human
race'. The planet is very capable of looking after itself and will do
so long after human life is gone. Even 100-200 years may be an
optimistically long time-span. The next 50 years or so may well see
nature causing some very big problems for what we consider to be our
'civilisation'. Whatever changes are already locked into the climate
system as a result of the increased concentration of CO2 look to me
very likely to happen. I doubt if there's now any chance of stopping
them. The lifestyle changes that would be necessary are almost
certainly politically and socially unacceptable.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:
On 30/07/2019 01:51, Keith Harris wrote:
On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:

This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
locked into the system.

Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter :-)

It's an old technique in the 'global warming' industry that's been used
before - and it's about as authoritative as 'hide the decline' was in
its day.

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons. Perhaps NASA should practice what they preach?

JAAMOI, what is the correct level for atmospheric CO2 on which we should
be spending our trillions trying to attain?


+1, although IMHO any decent scientist would not just be looking at data
back to 1800, they would be looking at 10,000 year and million year (and
longer) timescales as well.

What I find profoundly depressing is that so much of the media coverage,
which presumably comes from press releases aimed at something like the
average IQ, only ever looks at a few decades.

An advantage that many of us here have, with our ~70 year perspective,
is that we knew people in the 50's and 60's who themselves had a 70 year
perspective. So, in the cold grey damp summers around 1960, all my great
aunts and uncles would tell us how much better the summers were when
they were our age. But anecdotal evidence from a single lifetime
supports the monotonic model which, conveniently, correlates with CO2
levels.

Your final point is a good one. The way I put it is this.

Fossil fuel use has put up carbon dioxide levels

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but we don't really know the right "curve")

We're talking about targets of 1.5 degrees (but we don't really know
what effect this will actually have).

We don't know what CO2 level will lead to 1.5 degrees

We don't know how much CO2 we need to emit to reach that level.

So the only science that is really settled is the first one and the
first part of the second.

On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
Most children born today - at least in Western countries - are likely to
be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state of the earth in 2100 and for
their children out to 2200 is what's vitally important - food to eat,
water to drink and dry land significantly above current sea level to live.

And far more important because all of the above depend on it, access to
reasonably priced energy

Which the greens would deny them absolutely.

They day I will believe advocates of climate change being man made,
believe it actually is, is the day they cease from jetting round the
world in private jets to conferences, sell all their beachfront
properties to buy farms on Alaska and endorse nuclear power stations.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.

On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons.

You've managed to put your finger on a key point. Concern about climate
change is about what happens on human timescales, not geological
timescales. Most children born today - at least in Western countries -
are likely to be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state of the earth in
2100 and for their children out to 2200 is what's vitally important -
food to eat, water to drink and dry land significantly above current sea
level to live.

The difference between human and geological timescales is, let's say, a
million times - it's the same ratio as between 20 seconds and a
lifetime. Will the earth survive? Yes, of course, as it has for the past
4B years. For a significant % of humanity, including your family, the
answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping what is
happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50
million years. Think human timescales!




If you think in human timescales then the current increase in global
temperature is not significant.

The models used to predict what is going to happen just don't work over
human timescales as has been shown in the past..

they didn't get the predictions correct twenty years ago, they didn't
get them correct ten years ago either.

It is a requirement of science that predictions are available and are
correct to prove a theory so current climate change theory is not proven
in scientific terms.

None of the alarming predictions that have been made for several decades
have happened so what makes you think the current crop are going to happen?

It is far more likely that climate modellers just don't know what causes
things and their assumption are wrong just as they have been in the
past, after all they do keep repeating the same things.

The Russians built a climate model a number of decades ago that did
match predictions with real data but it has been ignored as it doesn't
predict the end of the world BTW.

On 30/07/2019 13:11, Andrew wrote: On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.



Actually, population growth is no longer that acute a problem - we've
largely missed the boat on that one. See eg:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...f-the-century/

or https://pewrsr.ch/2N7MIUb (the same URL shortened).

Certainly an extra 20-30% added to the world population between now and
2100 is not going to help things and if it could be limited that's all
to the good, but it's not the killer factor that climate change itself is.

Looks like Africa is main continent where efforts should be focused to
encourage smaller family sizes. If that were successful then we might
significantly undershoot the 10.9B that's currently projected for 2100
(up from nearly 8B now).

On 30/07/2019 12:10, Norman Lynagh wrote:
The planet is very capable of looking after itself and will do
so long after human life is gone.

James Lovelock's Gaia has moved on from the hypothesis stage?


--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm

On 30/07/2019 14:45, JGD wrote:
On 30/07/2019 13:11, Andrew wrote: On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.



Actually, population growth is no longer that acute a problem - we've
largely missed the boat on that one. See eg:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...f-the-century/


or https://pewrsr.ch/2N7MIUb (the same URL shortened).

Certainly an extra 20-30% added to the world population between now and
2100 is not going to help things and if it could be limited that's all
to the good, but it's not the killer factor that climate change itself is.

Looks like Africa is main continent where efforts should be focused to
encourage smaller family sizes. If that were successful then we might
significantly undershoot the 10.9B that's currently projected for 2100
(up from nearly 8B now).
If the worlds population had levelled off at about 3 billion then we
wouldn't have the current media-inspired fantasy called 'climate
extinction'.

The worlds population is still going UP and will continue to do so
for some time. UP means MORE people, not fewer, even if the rate is
slowing.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

There is no population crisis. The combination of the two
most populous countries, India and China arent even self
replacing now. Sure, quite a bit of africa is still much more
than self replacing, but thats a small part of the world
population wise.

NOT ONE modern first world country is self replacing now
if you take out immigration.

Birth rates are dropping EVERYWHERE now except
where they are already right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...#1950_and_2015

Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.

BULL**** on that guaranteeing claim.

"JGD" wrote in message
...
On 30/07/2019 13:11, Andrew wrote: On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.



Actually, population growth is no longer that acute a problem - we've
largely missed the boat on that one. See eg:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...f-the-century/

or https://pewrsr.ch/2N7MIUb (the same URL shortened).

Certainly an extra 20-30% added to the world population between now and
2100 is not going to help things and if it could be limited that's all to
the good, but it's not the killer factor that climate change itself is.

There is no evidence that climate change is a killer factor.

Sure, if we do see significant rises in sea level that will be a problem
for some places like Bangladesh, but thats not a killer factor.

Looks like Africa is main continent where efforts should be focused to
encourage smaller family sizes.

But some african countries have seen their fertility rate halved since
1950 so it is far from clear that any action is actually needed.

If that were successful then we might significantly undershoot the 10.9B
that's currently projected for 2100 (up from nearly 8B now).

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 06:52:58 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

There is no population crisis.

If YOU say so, there isn't one of course, senile know-it-all!

LMAO

--
pamela about Rot Speed:
"His off the cuff expertise demonstrates how little he knows..."
MID:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 07:42:37 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 30/07/2019 14:45, JGD wrote:
On 30/07/2019 13:11, Andrew wrote: On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.



Actually, population growth is no longer that acute a problem - we've
largely missed the boat on that one. See eg:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...f-the-century/
or https://pewrsr.ch/2N7MIUb (the same URL shortened).

Certainly an extra 20-30% added to the world population between now and
2100 is not going to help things and if it could be limited that's all to
the good, but it's not the killer factor that climate change itself is.

Looks like Africa is main continent where efforts should be focused to
encourage smaller family sizes. If that were successful then we might
significantly undershoot the 10.9B that's currently projected for 2100
(up from nearly 8B now).
If the worlds population had levelled off at about 3 billion then we
wouldn't have the current media-inspired fantasy called 'climate
extinction'.

The worlds population is still going UP and will continue to do so
for some time. UP means MORE people, not fewer, even if the rate is
slowing.

But we handled the massive increase in world population from say 1900
fine and in fact went from periodic famines then to none at all now except
where the place has deteriorated into the most obscene levels of civil war
and
civil chaos or have been stupid enough to let some fool like Kim Jong Il
rule
the roost. No reason why we can't handle the lower increase till 2100 fine
too.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 08:07:09 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


The worlds population is still going UP and will continue to do so
for some time. UP means MORE people, not fewer, even if the rate is
slowing.

But we

"We", AGAIN, you delusional psychopathic senile cretin? How often do you
still need to be told that there never WAS nor IS a "we" for you? NOBODY,
but NOBODY, identifies with a disgusting senile asshole like you. NEITHER in
real life NOR online!

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On 30/07/2019 21:52, Swer wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

There is no population crisis. The combination of the two
most populous countries, India and China arent even self
replacing now. Sure, quite a bit of africa is still much more
than self replacing, but thats a small part of the world
population wise.

NOT ONE modern first world country is self replacing now
if you take out immigration.

Birth rates are dropping EVERYWHERE now except
where they are already right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...#1950_and_2015


Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.

BULL**** on that guaranteeing claim.

If you took your head out of your ass you might be able
to smell the coffee and not what you are smelling.

On 30/07/2019 14:56, JGD wrote:
On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons.

You've managed to put your finger on a key point. Concern about climate
change is about what happens on human timescales, not geological
timescales. Most children born today - at least in Western countries -
are likely to be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state of the earth in
2100 and for their children out to 2200 is what's vitally important -
food to eat, water to drink and dry land significantly above current sea
level to live.

The difference between human and geological timescales is, let's say, a
million times - it's the same ratio as between 20 seconds and a
lifetime. Will the earth survive? Yes, of course, as it has for the past
4B years. For a significant % of humanity, including your family, the
answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping what is
happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50
million years. Think human timescales!

The problem you have with the 100-200 years time-scales is that if you
applied it to the LIA, one would swing between squandering a nation's
resources battling warming, or battling cooling, depending on where in
the LIA you chose as a datum.

This is nicely illustrated by BBCTV's lunchtime news today, in their
compulsory Climate Change propaganda slot. Apparently, the ten 'hottest'
years have all occurred since 2000, but the coldest three were just
after 1900. This is, of course, following the end of the LIA at about
that time, and it's little wonder that things have 'warmed' since then.
It's what one would expect. Unfortunately the climate change industry's
climate models are no help here. as they have failed to model anything,
and are a mere illustration of how little we know about the issue
currently called 'climate change'.

And thrown in to the 'news' for good measure, the UK's climate is more
variable because we are an island nation! There was I believing all
these years that our climate was less variable because we are an island!

--
Spike

On 31/07/2019 16:15, Spike wrote:


The problem you have with the 100-200 years time-scales is that if you
applied it to the LIA, one would swing between squandering a nation's
resources battling warming, or battling cooling, depending on where in
the LIA you chose as a datum.


Global temperature effects during the so-called Little Ice Age are
estimated to have been relatively small, maybe 0.5C as a maximum and
more likely significantly less than that. (Granted, in some regions like
Western Europe there were greater effects, but we're talking about
GLOBAL cooling/warming here.)

In contrast, the present warming period shows a global rise of 1C in the
past 100-150 years (with something like 0.7C in the past 40 years) and
the rise is continuing inexorably at 0.1-0.2C/decade - probably 1.5C by
2050.

So any appeal to the LIA doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 30/07/2019 21:52, Swer wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

There is no population crisis. The combination of the two
most populous countries, India and China arent even self
replacing now. Sure, quite a bit of africa is still much more
than self replacing, but thats a small part of the world
population wise.

NOT ONE modern first world country is self replacing now
if you take out immigration.

Birth rates are dropping EVERYWHERE now except
where they are already right down in the noise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...#1950_and_2015
Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.

BULL**** on that guaranteeing claim.

If you took your head out of your ass you might be able
to smell the coffee and not what you are smelling.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Thats why you keep getting the bums rush, right out the door on your lard
arse.

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 04:51:00 +1000, Swer, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

If you took your head out of your ass you might be able
to smell the coffee and not what you are smelling.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

YOU certainly KEEP bull****ting your way FAST into your grave, you
clinically insane 85-year-old senile pest!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 31/07/2019 19:45, JGD wrote:
On 31/07/2019 16:15, Spike wrote:


The problem you have with the 100-200 years time-scales is that if you
applied it to the LIA, one would swing between squandering a nation's
resources battling warming, or battling cooling, depending on where in
the LIA you chose as a datum.


Global temperature effects during the so-called Little Ice Age are
estimated to have been relatively small, maybe 0.5C as a maximum and
more likely significantly less than that. (Granted, in some regions like
Western Europe there were greater effects, but we're talking about
GLOBAL cooling/warming here.)

In contrast, the present warming period shows a global rise of 1C in the
past 100-150 years (with something like 0.7C in the past 40 years) and
the rise is continuing inexorably at 0.1-0.2C/decade - probably 1.5C by
2050.

So any appeal to the LIA doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.


However the claim that the top ten warmest years have been in the last
20 years is completely misleading.

Temps over about the last 50 years have done this (ascii graph)..


------------
/
/
/
----

With fairly big rises in the '70s followed by a long flat spot since
about 2000.

So when would the hottest years occur? That right in the last 20 years.
So it doesn't really mean a thing other than global warming has slowed
almost to a stop despite CO2 continuing to rise at an increasing rate.

So the next question is why didn't the models produced in the '80s
predict this?

then can the current models predict what is going to happen over the
next ten years?

If they don't are the climate modellers going to actually admit they
don't really know why the climate is changing?

On 31/07/2019 19:45, JGD wrote:
On 31/07/2019 16:15, Spike wrote:


The problem you have with the 100-200 years time-scales is that if you
applied it to the LIA, one would swing between squandering a nation's
resources battling warming, or battling cooling, depending on where in
the LIA you chose as a datum.


Global temperature effects during the so-called Little Ice Age are
estimated to have been relatively small, maybe 0.5C as a maximum and
more likely significantly less than that. (Granted, in some regions like
Western Europe there were greater effects, but we're talking about
GLOBAL cooling/warming here.)

In contrast, the present warming period shows a global rise of 1C in the
past 100-150 years (with something like 0.7C in the past 40 years) and
the rise is continuing inexorably at 0.1-0.2C/decade - probably 1.5C by
2050.

So any appeal to the LIA doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.

I don't know about you, but the five separate curves shown in the middle
of the NASA link originally given

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

look to me to correlate far too well to be considered "independent".

I wonder how much of the argument that the LIA was "local" is actually
down to there being relatively good data for the UK and Europe at that
time, but not much for other regions that might have been similarly
affected.

On 31/07/2019 19:45, JGD wrote:
On 31/07/2019 16:15, Spike wrote:


The problem you have with the 100-200 years time-scales is that if you
applied it to the LIA, one would swing between squandering a nation's
resources battling warming, or battling cooling, depending on where in
the LIA you chose as a datum.


Global temperature effects during the so-called Little Ice Age are
estimated to have been relatively small, maybe 0.5C as a maximum and
more likely significantly less than that.

Estimated by who, and nho paid them to estimate?

(Granted, in some regions like
Western Europe there were greater effects, but we're talking about
GLOBAL cooling/warming here.)

In contrast, the present warming period shows a global rise of 1C in the
past 100-150 years (with something like 0.7C in the past 40 years) and
the rise is continuing inexorably at 0.1-0.2C/decade - probably 1.5C by
2050.

As usual fdudeg te data to preserve the narrative


So any appeal to the LIA doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.


How about the fact that its stopped warmning almost completely since
1997, when urabanization around the weather stations was completed, but
CO2 has kept on increassing




--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:59:12 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

If they don't are the climate modellers going to actually admit
they don't really know why the climate is changing?

It's pretty obvious that temperatures are rising, sea levels are
rising and polar ice is melting. The issue is what to do about it,
not to waste time bickering over detail in the models and
predictions. Deniers are just wasting everyone's time.

On 01/08/2019 11:16, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:59:12 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

If they don't are the climate modellers going to actually admit
they don't really know why the climate is changing?

It's pretty obvious that temperatures are rising,

No, it is not.


sea levels are
rising

Se levels have been risng for 10,000 years

and polar ice is melting.

EWr no. Actually in antarcica it is currently increaseomd

The issue is what to do about it,
not to waste time bickering over detail in the models and
predictions. Deniers are just wasting everyone's time.


You dont need to do much about something that isnt happening



--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 01/08/2019 11:16, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:59:12 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

If they don't are the climate modellers going to actually admit
they don't really know why the climate is changing?

It's pretty obvious that temperatures are rising, sea levels are
rising and polar ice is melting. The issue is what to do about it,
not to waste time bickering over detail in the models and
predictions. Deniers are just wasting everyone's time.


Its not obvious at all..

temps have risen by virtually zero in the last 20 years.

sea levels haven't risen by much.

there isn't much less ice, its just in different places.

You don't actually think the videos they show of ice breaking off
glaciers is something new do you?

Where do you think the iceberg that sank Titanic in 1912(IIRC) came from?

On Thursday, 1 August 2019 16:14:11 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2019 11:16, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:59:12 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

If they don't are the climate modellers going to actually admit
they don't really know why the climate is changing?

It's pretty obvious that temperatures are rising, sea levels are
rising and polar ice is melting. The issue is what to do about it,
not to waste time bickering over detail in the models and
predictions. Deniers are just wasting everyone's time.


Its not obvious at all..

temps have risen by virtually zero in the last 20 years.

sea levels haven't risen by much.

there isn't much less ice, its just in different places.

You don't actually think the videos they show of ice breaking off
glaciers is something new do you?

Where do you think the iceberg that sank Titanic in 1912(IIRC) came from?

Dunno perhap[s it was colder then than it is now and the icebergs that would normally be there have melted.

On Thursday, 1 August 2019 16:14:11 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/08/2019 11:16, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:59:12 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

If they don't are the climate modellers going to actually admit
they don't really know why the climate is changing?

It's pretty obvious that temperatures are rising, sea levels are
rising and polar ice is melting. The issue is what to do about it,
not to waste time bickering over detail in the models and
predictions. Deniers are just wasting everyone's time.


Its not obvious at all..

temps have risen by virtually zero in the last 20 years.

sea levels haven't risen by much.

there isn't much less ice, its just in different places.

You don't actually think the videos they show of ice breaking off
glaciers is something new do you?

Where do you think the iceberg that sank Titanic in 1912(IIRC) came from?

At all times there is ice melting and ice freezing, it's called dynamic equilibrium. Some people believe anything.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 31/07/2019 19:45, JGD wrote:
On 31/07/2019 16:15, Spike wrote:


The problem you have with the 100-200 years time-scales is that if you
applied it to the LIA, one would swing between squandering a nation's
resources battling warming, or battling cooling, depending on where in
the LIA you chose as a datum.


Global temperature effects during the so-called Little Ice Age are
estimated to have been relatively small, maybe 0.5C as a maximum and more
likely significantly less than that. (Granted, in some regions like
Western Europe there were greater effects, but we're talking about GLOBAL
cooling/warming here.)

In contrast, the present warming period shows a global rise of 1C in the
past 100-150 years (with something like 0.7C in the past 40 years) and
the rise is continuing inexorably at 0.1-0.2C/decade - probably 1.5C by
2050.

So any appeal to the LIA doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.

I don't know about you, but the five separate curves shown in the middle
of the NASA link originally given

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

look to me to correlate far too well to be considered "independent".

I wonder how much of the argument that the LIA was "local" is actually
down to there being relatively good data for the UK and Europe at that
time, but not much for other regions that might have been similarly
affected.

The whole of the first world and most of the second world
were doing met records just as accurately in 1900 as they
were being done in the UK and Europe at that time, even
in the wilds of Australia etc, And we had the Federation
Drought at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Drought

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 05:40:03 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The whole of the first world and most of the second world
were doing met records just as accurately in 1900 as they
were being done in the UK and Europe at that time, even
in the wilds of Australia etc, And we had the Federation
Drought at that time.

Australia, senile Rodent? NOTHING to do with a UK ng, you obnoxious senile
pest from Oz!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:14:05 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 01/08/2019 11:16, mechanic wrote:
[...]
It's pretty obvious that temperatures are rising, sea levels are
rising and polar ice is melting. The issue is what to do about it,
not to waste time bickering over detail in the models and
predictions. Deniers are just wasting everyone's time.

Its not obvious at all..

temps have risen by virtually zero in the last 20 years.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKCN1P42KG

sea levels haven't risen by much.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

there isn't much less ice, its just in different places

That is more arguable:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

You don't actually think the videos they show of ice breaking off
glaciers is something new do you?

The videos of receding glaciers are.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...ier-recession/

On 01/08/2019 21:49, mechanic wrote:


The videos of receding glaciers are.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...ier-recession/


where are the videos of the advancing ones?


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 01/08/2019 22:21, Tim Streater wrote:
When I visited glaciers in Chamonix and at the head of the Rhone in the
late 60s very early 70s, there were signs then which pointed out how
much the glaciers had receded in the previous 100 years.

Are those the ones that are uncovering stumps of 1000 year old trees?


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 02/08/2019 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/08/2019 21:49, mechanic wrote:


The videos of receding glaciers are.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...ier-recession/


where are the videos of the advancing ones?



More to the point why do the temperature graphs stop at around 2000 on
all these sites?
Its not as though the data isn't there or that the sites don't claim to
have been produced in 2001, so why?

I can only think of one reason, they are diniers that there is a pause
in warming and are being run by alarmists and not scientists.

They want to prove their point by using carefully selected data.

Everything the alarmists accuse others of!

It doesn't work with anyone with a science background, the alarmists
will just have to go back to insulting their intelligence to try and
discredit them, like they do!