brokenbone

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As I pointed out even if the graph accurately reflected global temperatures, just a glance at it would demonstrate the absurdity of your contention. And if that isn't enough, there is the red trendline. And finally, as the Nature article shows, in 2000 years, it's only beginning in the 20th century that almost all the globe is warming at the same time.

1[ what absurdity ?

2] what trend ? that it its slowly increasing temperature

since the peak of the minor ice age ?

in a steady straight line i may add, there is no change

in rate since the recording started hundreds of years ago,

the only anomaly in that recovery from the minor ice age

is in the 1690-1740 interval

3] you are not going to find measured data anywhere on the planet going back 2000 years, england is your best bet and its less then 400 years,

other places with long term record of quality stations

is rest of west europe, usa, south west australia

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, the graph you post here is of Cenral england. I'm guessing you're a little Englander. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why someone would think such small region reflects global conditions. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it does. I'm looking at the right side of that graph and it sure looks like the average temperatures are alot more consistently high than elsewhere on the graph. So, in fact the graph does show that the warming is unprecedented and has risen sharply as the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased. 

But, in fact, not only Central England, but even all of the UK don't accurately jibe with global temperature conditions. Just recently there was a huge study the results of which were published in Nature. The gist of it was that out of the last 2000 years it is only beginning in the 20th century that temperatures rose nearly everywhere at the same time.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

 "This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures⁵, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

the reason i picked england data was its the longest measured data in the world,

it shows no upwards or downward curvature indicating no additional component in climate has been added since 1659,

the only anomaly in the graph is in the 1690-1740 interval.

there arent many places in the world with long term measured data,

we are much better off sticking with those we got to get a trend then to guess

what it was before, add new stations now,

and then speculate over trend and causes.

in addition to that, some stations have become corrupted due to man made constructions, asphalt and buildings,

that has shown to increase 5 degree to readings

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Sure, I'm the one making tendentious comments. LIke " only semi illiterates could even come up with the idea of denying the importance of co2 & h2o"

Odd how that ridiculous straw manstatement doesn't seem to draw your attention at all.

And then there's the case of your doublethink. What technology are you referring to as "advancing at a ridiculous rate" Because if you're talking about renewables and storage, I agree. But given your past comments, it's dubious that's what you meant.

the previous rant was a bit long to comment on,

but the general thrust of your past posts

is that climate 'change too fast'

(correct me if interpreted wrong)

what this longest record of measured data graph shows is

that anomalies are tiny and the only one of them

that sort of stick out a bit is the 1690-1735 interval.

if you wish to delve into why that anomaly is,

you would have to look at other factors then changing co2 levels, or there is no logic at all in your reasoning

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

8 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Heat waves are more common, hurricanes, major flooding, air pollution.  

Strange to me with all the new tech. and medical advances in the last 30 years, our electricity and transportation methods are still based on 100+ year old technologies....Combustion of coal and oil. 
 

Anyone with a bit of chemistry background must accept that "combustion" of carbon based fuels is releasing CO2 into our atmosphere.  Every year billions more tons of CO2 released and you think there is not going to be a "reaction" to all this added CO2?  Denying it wont make it go away

 

oh but there IS a reaction, increased biomass,

the two primary byproducts when you burn fossil fuels

are carbon dioxide and water, hands down the two most important molecules for life on earth.

only semi illiterates could even come up with the idea of denying the importance of co2 & h2o

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You've made an excellent point. Clearly the solution is for all of Earth's 7 billion human beings to be able travel to wherever the climate is most comfortable. 

 

its not the change per say, but the rate of it all,

i was there standing in bkk thinking OMG whatever got into me ?

anyway, the biggest anomaly in these data

is not in industrial era, but from very late 1600 to 1750, so if you want to specify cause of anomaly, you would have to

look at other factors then co2 levels

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between "change" and "rate of change".

yes, the +1 degree celsius in early 1700 must have been a horrifying experience for all the species in england,

i know the horror i went through

when i landed in thailand after a long journey from the comfy scandinavia,

the HORROR, i get panic just thinking about my difficulties to adjust to thailand temperatures.

and the pace was just too fast to cope with, it went from minus 25 degree to plus 25 degree in 12 hours.

be grateful you had the sense to stay in englands tolerable climate, change is never a good thing

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

i havnt actually got any experience of being dead yet,

but my hypothesis is that if she doesnt speak

adequate english, i would have to set up a contact that works as a medium.

secondly i'd give her info how to contact embassy,

i would obviously get legal marrriage certificate

or make a will, and i would inquire embassy how to smooth things up.

i would probably also write a closed good bye letter

in advance, with my atm and some advice

and some butterish words,

either given to her directly or to a friend

to hand it over, depending on thrust

On 12/14/2019 at 6:12 PM, bristolboy said:

Really? The IPCC issued a report written by scientists warning of the consequences of an average global temperature of 2.0 degrees over the pre industrial average global temperature vs. 1.5 degrees centigrade. Here's a graphic created bu WRI to illustrate the IPCC's predictions:

1.5 degrees is bad enough. And of course, as of now, the world is on track to surpass the 1.5 degree limit in 2030. And to surpass the 2 degree limit in 2049.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/according-new-ipcc-report-world-track-exceed-its-carbon-budget-12-years

 

1] arctic didnt have any ice at all until 3 million years ago

2] twas 16 degree higher temperature 50 million years ago,

and every data to date suggest vertebrates thrive at higher then todays average. in addition to that, every single

plant require a bare minimum of 150 ppm,

and by extension the vertebrates that eat the plants too, as otherwise they would go extinct along with the plants

3] loss of plants you say ??!

where does it grow better, thailand or greenland ?

4] insects: just the other day ipcc warned us

of malaria if mosquitoes no longer freeze to death due to, you guessed it, climate change [sic],

in this graph they took a 180 degree turn and say

mosquitoes will lose their range if they dont freeze to death

5] crop yields: plants thrive at higher temperature and higher co2, especially more co2, they are starving as of todays 400 ppm

6] corals and all other marine species that build shells

wouldnt have evolved at all without co2,

co2 is a building block for their shells,

they evolved at a time when co2 was over 5 times higher then today, 2000+ ppm, strongly indicating that is the optimum for them.

data does not support the hypothesis

that higher temp & co2 is negative for life,

on contrary it indicates an additional 16 degree celsius

and an additional 1500 ppm on top of todays values

promote life, range, and biomass.

the only logical explanation how ipcc could

come up with these dumb statements

would be if their mandate and their existence at all hinges on articulating human caused climate change and negative effects thereof.

oh wait ????

you would have to define 'real cheap'

so we can narrow down solutions.

it used to work for me to brush the infected area

to puncture the place and release pressure,

i would recover after 1-2 weeks with no further

treatment needed

47 minutes ago, Misab said:

 "Many scientists believe the research that shows the level of CO2 is a function of temperature rise, not the cause of it."  This is pure nonsens.

 

no, you are wrong here,

there are alarmists that understand co2 is a function of

out/in gassing of ocean due to sea temperature,

hopefully at least one of the alarmists here understand at least that much, and will speak up.

how else would you explain co2 lag behind temperature

on an average of 800 years ?

on top of that is that its only the past million years any correlation can be noted at all, the million year

when the ice ages has correlated with eccentricity of milankovitch cycles, on the extreme low end of

both climate and co2 through history.

9 hours ago, White Christmas13 said:

Hoax OK?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/dec/18/australia-extreme-heatwave-weather-forecast-nsw-fires-near-new-south-wales-total-fire-ban-bushfires-victoria-melbourne-sydney-latest-news-live-updates

still a mild breeze compared to 1880-1906 interval. climate is cyclical in nature

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1138234-activist-thunberg-denounces-creative-pr-in-climate-fight/?do=findComment&comment=14851959

On 12/17/2019 at 3:18 PM, Vacuum said:

Most likely a foreign police volunteer. They're sometimes used for this kind of work...

how do i volunteer for the fondling,

and what is the pay ?

On 9/27/2019 at 6:47 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

Have you tried Russia?

the russian/ukraine/uzbek girls are easily the best looking in town

8 hours ago, Moonlover said:

In a week's time followed by a day in early January, some 2.2 billion people on this planet will be celebrating a 'virgin birth'. So what's so odd about this case?

 

in the words of the virgin mary: cum again ?

the ground is sour

do i really have to bring passport for a bus ticket or am i just too sleepy to grasp this topic ?

9 hours ago, mogandave said:

How?

in a word, man spreading,

and scientists has also been able to establish a link to climate change

to this arrogant display of power, of which electric power is but one aspect,

(that needs to be neutered asap)

SOCIOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLEThe conceptual penis as a social constructJamie Lindsay1* and Peter Boyle1

Abstract: Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent con-struct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomi-cal organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine performance.Subjects: Gender Studies - Soc Sci; Postmodernism of Cultural Theory; FeminismKeywords: penis; feminism; machismo braggadocio; masculinity; climate change

2.2. Climate change and the conceptual penisNowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change. Climate change is driven by nothing more than it is by certain damaging themes in hypermasculinity that can be best understood via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identifiable with the con-ceptual penis. Our planet is rapidly approaching the much-warned-about 2°C climate change thresh-old, and due to patriarchal power dynamics that maintain present capitalist structures, especially with regard to the fossil fuel industry, the connection between hypermasculine dominance of scientific, political, and economic discourses and the irreparable damage to our ecosystem is made clear

https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf

there is no beat at all currently, thai baht too high,

i think its a scam vs investors

he only forgot to add 'white' when he was defining the villains of the world,

spose its alzheimer setting in

2 hours ago, mike787 said:

Maybe you found a unicorn! Good luck to you...you can't win if you don't play the game....one way of seeing it...wish you both many happy beginnings & endings - LOL

i second this, the gut feeling is accumulated through experience,

it was right every single time for me,

only catch is i didnt adhere to it but instead followed <deleted>ty advices

and a flawed way of preserving an equally flawed persona

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Good for you.  Doesn't make you god, though.  Some scientists like to think that they have powers that no one else possesses.  We were all born with common sense, though.  Granted, not everyone makes use of it.  I would not be surprised that some scientists fail to use their god-given common sense as well.

the fundamental flaw is the orwellian math climate scientists use,

scientists have a 95.3% confidence this math was originally developed by

neanderthals, it quickly fell out of fashion as it was not applicable for anything,

but made a comeback 1975 as perfect fit for climate science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eaxODT0oA0