17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

top one is sinking

youre just ruining our panic-party, party pooper pooping all over anxiety, how dare you ?

on a more serious note, it brings up a problem that has emanate

lately. your typical climate scientist would combine both data

to formalize it, and present an undeniable upward trend,

this has been done in historical temperature record,

while the obvious logical way would be to dismiss poor data altogether.

this illustrate how sh!t data from sh!t stations are, sometimes

with sinister intent, used to mess up history and predictions,

and humanity would be a whole wide world better off

with fewer high quality stations,

its stuff like this that causes misinformation & hysteria

On 12/12/2019 at 10:19 PM, Lacessit said:

 

Meantime, don't buy  any real estate in Bangkok. A city only 1 metre above sea level doesn't strike me as a good long-term investment. Bet the financial advisers are not saying that.

there are two tide gauges in bkk region,

one shows rapid sea rise and the other very little.

one of the tide gauges was built on fill dirt in a swamp,

the other on solid ground.

the gauge built on fill dirt in a swamp project flood by 2050,

the one on solid ground project flood by year 8000 (western counting)

not saying it is, but it could be that the alarmists mixed

up sinking station with rising sea level,

it wouldnt be the first time they got it 180 degree wrong

this is, btw, a direct analogy to the issues of thermometer placement

in urban surroundings these days, just swap swamp/asphalt/urban

depending on what you are trying to measure,

its going to give false readings either way you cut it

EDIT By Crossy.  Graphs sourced here 

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=600-041

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Sure thing, temperature readings were much more reliable in the 19th century than they are now 

two decimal thermometer improvement does not negate urban asphalt surrounding impact

17 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Mildura is only on the fringe of the real Australian interior. Broken Hill and Alice Springs are more appropriate sites for measurements.

Has it occurred to you the single reading quoted in 1906 may itself be in error due to a thermometer being placed in the sun for journalistic licence? Or that multiple, statistically significant readings in this century may be more precise and accurate?

 

in case you didnt notice, it was specified it was in the shade.

it can also be the case that many new stations are badly placed

in urban areas with asphalt around, only adding noise to the overall picture .

here is another record from 1896

with 127 F / 52 C from south wales australia, (in the shade, no asphalt enhanced)

which begs the question: was it really that much co2 in south wales then ?

or is it plausible that it can be hot without man ?

25 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your data is distorted by the absence of a statistically significant number of temperature readings in the Australian interior in earlier times. For crying out loud, can't you tell the difference between the Fahrenheit and Centigrade temperature scale? That 1906 110F reading is a comparatively mild 43 degrees C. The last heat cell in central Australia hit 54 C. Your data is BS.

both articles states 124 F in the shade, which is 51 c,

and it may well happen that the latest record is a result of a badly placed thermometer

in urban area surrounded by asphalt, a problem these days

for some of the readings.

here is another with 127 F / 52 c 1896 from south wales australia,

there wasnt any asphalt around to distort readings back then.

45 minutes ago, Prairieboy said:

The question must be "Which environmental group is writing her scripts?"  These are not the words of a 16 year old 'activist'.

the 'you come to us to look for hope, how dare you' speech

had a whiff of drama queen, so id go with the father, the actor

i found some more data on australia,

every one of them points to 1906 as being the hottest on record,

and in general, 1880-1906 was a very warm period.

if i were revisionist, id make sure no data pre 1907 would ever be released,

it sorta <deleted> all over the parade

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

you are of course welcome to think so, each man strong in his faith

 

I still maintain my view

 

I have checked the official Swedish figures re salaries for actors in the various "provinces" in Sweden,

their salary is NOT high at all

you would quite simply struggle to run a family with two grown ups and two kids with that salary

 

I didna bother to look for the opera bit

 

 

 

greta may well be making good money, i looked up 'media influencers'

and it turned out a swede was at the very top, making 12 million USD per year

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Cambrian Man again!

those were the days when a man could just shake his beer glass

to get appropriate amount of tickling bubbles in the beer

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Really. I suppose that explains why it is trending up ever since the Industrial Revolution.

Where on earth do you get your projections from? A Weeties packet,perhaps?

If you read my previous posts without prejudice, you may observe I am talking about heat and thermodynamics as well.

yes, we, the humans broke the downward spiral,

without us recycling co2 back into atmosphere where it belong,

life on earth is destined to go extinct.

more heat you say ? about time say i,

i have had it with living in an eternal ice age, inter glacial or not

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You are referring, of course, to the energy and material used in the construction of said facilities, while ignoring the positive output of carbon-free energy.

A red herring, which is to be expected from someone of your background.

what is positive about carbon-free energy ?

processor isnt the bottleneck, RAM & hdd are.

guessing you arent heavy into games so those are the bottlenecks,

id get as much RAM as my budget will get me and dont bother

with the rest, save for multiple USB ports

48 minutes ago, Scott said:

You can stop with the endless posting of screenshots with no attribution and little or no explanation.  

 

It is a discussion forum.   Discuss matters and post substantiating links.  

for those of us that still view this as a technical rather then political issue,

data is everything, and graphs are the most suitable means of transferring

and presenting those data

https://guides.library.illinois.edu/copyrightreferenceguide/fairuse

Fair Use of Tables, Charts, & Graphs for Research Purposes

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

But not our lives. Unless we develop gills, another Cambrian period would see us all off!

but this time around we already have the oxygen and the plants,

i most likely wouldnt have had to come to thailand to venture outdoors

without a jacket

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Hi. Until someone can tell me what temperature the Earth SHOULD be at, or how big the glaciers should be, the argument is nonsensical.  Depending on where you live, the world getting a bit warmer could be a good or bad thing. One thing is for sure though, it is a natural thing. Gets hotter, gets colder. It's a cycle that is literally as old as the hills. 

 

As for Saint Greta of the Perpetual Scowl and her ilk, they are running into the big problem that all "true believers" of any religion or cult run into- the problem of hypocrisy. Go to a Climate Strike, ask the protestors to give up their iPhones and cool shoes and air conditioning- see how they respond!

i dont think there can be any arguments against cambrian period

with an average temperature of 22, 8 degree celcius higher then today,

and 2000+ ppm co2, five times higher then today,

are unrivaled in earth history for promoting life

3 hours ago, MeePeeMai said:

Suck on this Greta:    

Climate Shock: 90 Percent Of The World’s Glaciers Are GROWING (according to NASA)

https://principia-scientific.org/climate-shock-90-percent-worlds-glaciers-growing/

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/a-surprise-one-of-earths-fastest-shrinking-glaciers-is-suddenly-growing-again/333764

 

time has in any case run out, we are heading for colder times,

every article on warming from this point on is fake from start to finish

26 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

...and since you are a climate scientist or a biologist, you sure have peer reviewed papers at hand, that support your claims, especially about the "warmer climate", that is so little frightening to you and yours!

what do you feel is so frightening about warmer climate ?

the warm periods to date has been beneficial to biomass

2 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

"you are dead wrong about the economic viability & reliability of windmills,

in germany who was dumb enough to bet on it, electricity is now considered a luxury,"   wrong! Totally wrong and missing any kind of source for this laughable claim! 

"and they still need the coal plants for when the wind dont blow." wrong! Except for the fact, that I would also like to see a quote for this next laughable claim: you know how BATTERIES work, don't you?

"they have been labeled a wealth destroying technology" by whom? Please also give me a source for this laughable claim! 

no, the only feasible 'battery' that would have any prospect of being viable

in this case would be pumping water uphill on those occasions when the wind blow,

and extract the potential energy when it dont blow

19 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Read this, please!

I am happy to help with your education!

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

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

i was watching a german engineer talking about the issues first hand,

cant re find it on a whim but here is another article

on the issues http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/01/27/the-economics-of-wind-power/

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Trashing capitalism?

Who want to do that?

I mean...I personally would have a look into that, but the discussion is not about "trashing" capitalism!

Closing coal- mines, that need subsidising and opening research facilities and windfarms or solarplants, that actually offer jobs and the prospect of gains and profit...is just finding new opportunities!

No one says, that workers at windfarms or im hydro- powerplants are working for free and for fun! 

you are dead wrong about the economic viability & reliability of windmills,

in germany who was dumb enough to bet on it, electricity is now considered a luxury,

and they still need the coal plants for when the wind dont blow.

they have been labeled a wealth destroying technology

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Is there anyone (A-N-Y-O-N-E) who says, we should get rid of Co2 in total?

Apart from the fact, that this is not possible...who has ever advocated for that?

Even the dumbest of the dumb KNOWS, that we need Co2 to survive!

But we sure don't need it in the quantity we produce it at the moment!

we dont, but the plants that are the basis of our existence do,

they have been at starvation diet for millions of years and it gradually gets worse,

save the past few decades when we, the humans, had the decency

to give them first aid breathing assistance.

its co2  that holds them back with current co2 levels.

its well known that they thrive at 1500+ ppm,

and if we can sustain 1500+ ppm, that is what we should do

also, its not only possible but inevitable that co2 will drop below 150 ppm

due to sequestration, it will happen without doubt in 2-3 million years

if man dont dig it up, and release it back into

the atmosphere where it belong

in addition in such a life critical matter, it would be unwise

to say the least, to linger at the brink of extinction (150 ppm),

we should have a good safety margin,

even more so as it is only ever good for nature to be at a healthy level of co2.

in construction, it is common to build with a safety factor of 10,

theres no reason to be cheaper with safety in this case,

when literally all life on earth hinge on it