Climate Change: An unstoppable movement takes hold

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Well I cant see, hear or feel dark matter but they have me convinced it exists. Now where did I hide my quark?

 

Im not speculating. Im asking. Its not like you to be so curmudgeonly. Constipated? 

 

Does that survey include the sheep farms? Or ranches? Or brothels or orgies or whatever you call a bunch of Aussies and sheep.

 

Although in your defense, you guys did show a set of major balls at 3rd Ypres.

Of course you can see and feel dark matter. It's on every bargirl you have ever barfined, about midway.

Okra, papaya and sweet corn are excellent natural laxatives. I don't expect you to know that, on your diet of pizza and fermented walrus.

The survey included everyone who responded to it. How many brain cells did you kill off with yesterday's imbibing?

[lvr181]

[Lacessit]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Soooooo, explain how the climate was warmer during Roman times and we can't have contributed to it as long before industrial revolution?

If the dogma was correct, all the glaciers on the planet would be receding but they ain't- google it.

According to the information I heard, humans contribute 3% of all atmospheric CO2- tell me how that makes a difference?

Water vapour is apparently the biggest green house "gas". However, can't tax that.

Go back to Post #113.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/5/2019 at 8:25 PM, Just Weird said:

I wonder how many of the indignant, ignorant, hypocrites (and I'm not necessarily referring to Thaivisa posters) who pontificate about alleged significant climate change and humans' ability to change it ever actually do anything about it personally?   Apart from whinging about 7-11s, that is.

You hit on the weak spot there. If any of them are not going to fly, not use a fossil fuelled car, not use electricity generated by fossil fuel, not use anything made of plastic, compost all waste and never ever buy anything wrapped in plastic, they are keeping very quiet about it.

I've been asking that question for as long as the eco warriors have been doing a Chicken Little, but I never get a reply.

[brokenbone]

22 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

From the Sydney Morning Herald August 3rd 1971: "...announced the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months."

 

All these pronouncements sound like religious zealots proclaiming the end of the world on a certain date!

 

BTW - The Great Barrier Reef is not dead, a little battered at the moment & not for the first time.

Western Australia’s Scott Reef has recovered from mass bleaching

....and that during a time with even higher co2 levels, fancy that.

just maybe the 97% brigade got it 180 degree wrong yet again, -co2 for life in the ocean too

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405094523.htm

Edited October 7, 2019 by brokenbone

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Go back to Post #113.

I did and it doesn't explain anything. It's just a picture of a glacier retreating.

I won't be wasting my time checking out your past posts again either.

[brokenbone]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I did and it doesn't explain anything. It's just a picture of a glacier retreating.

I won't be wasting my time checking out your past posts again either.

sometimes it erects and sometimes it goes flaccid, it seem it apply to all aspects of life.

and you just never know when and where.

heres antarctic ice build up that offset the arctic withdrawal

Edited October 7, 2019 by brokenbone

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I did and it doesn't explain anything. It's just a picture of a glacier retreating.

I won't be wasting my time checking out your past posts again either.

Just as I won't waste my time responding to your posts, because you have obviously have an opinion set in concrete on the issue.

[Lacessit]

14 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

sometimes it erects and sometimes it goes flaccid, it seem it apply to all aspects of life.

and you just never know when and where.

heres antarctic ice build up that offset the arctic withdrawal

Sea ice comes from land ice. That's the Larsen ice shelf breaking up.

[brokenbone]

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Sea ice comes from land ice. That's the Larsen ice shelf breaking up.

you cant attribute changes in sea to short term fluctuations in temperature.

it takes hundreds of years for the sea to react to temperature changes, the volume is just too great

Edited October 7, 2019 by brokenbone

[Fruit Trader]

2 hours ago, overherebc said:

The UK could set the ball rolling by chopping the 52% who voted for Brexit.

And leave the country without any common sense?

[Nyezhov]

48 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Just as I won't waste my time responding to your posts, because you have obviously have an opinion set in concrete on the issue.

But what was the temperature at the start of the industrial age? That way a sillyfool like me knows how much the earth is warming. Im particularly interested in International Falls Minnesota, which would be a lovely place if it warms up.

[brokenbone]

46 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

But what was the temperature at the start of the industrial age? That way a sillyfool like me knows how much the earth is warming. Im particularly interested in International Falls Minnesota, which would be a lovely place if it warms up.

heres minnesota temperatures for past 100 years.

its a bit of amateur graph in that years before 1970

isnt hidden away, it would have given more credibility

to the red line that implies rising temperature.

ipcc chose to pick the ideal start date

for temperature to 1973, and hide the rest,

and then make some suggestional red dots taking off in the sky at the end of the graph, to really stimulate imagination

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by brokenbone

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

heres minnesota temperatures for past 100 years.

its a bit of amateur graph in that years before 1970

isnt hidden away, it would have given more credibility

to the red line that implies rising temperature.

 

Where did they get the temp figures from 1900 ? How about from before? And if the figures are valid, doesnt it show more than a "rise"?

[Dumbastheycome]

16 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

You said nothing again. 

Nothing you would consider considering.????

[overherebc]

1 hour ago, Fruit Trader said:

And leave the country without any common sense?

A few minutes after I posted that word I regretted it.

All it does is bring out insults and wanna be politicians.

Sorry to all.

[brokenbone]

30 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Where did they get the temp figures from 1900 ? How about from before? And if the figures are valid, doesnt it show more than a "rise"?

the temperature scale was developed by a swedish astromoner 1742, mr celsius.

before that, we have anecdotal info, like during minor ice age 1650 the river of themes

and the belts of denmark freezing over,

allowing people to play hockey or invade denmark as per their preferences.

and the other way around, medieval warm period when wine

was growing in what is now a hell of ice and snow, by digging up old trees and check the age.

after that we get other data like ice cores from vostok,

check their co2 content and get an idea of temperatures much further back,

since co2 is an effect of temperature, not the other way around.

 

ed: yes, its a slight increasing tendency

of temperature, but not like the suggested carefully cherry picked data that ipcc are selling.

if you from this graph select 1933 as start date, you will get the impression its a decrease in temperature during 1900,

this is the art and nature of statistics,

when creativity are allowed.

if you want to be really crafty,

you would use the good ole hockey stick statistics, (ipcc employs this tactic with the suggestive dots at the end of the scale) and jump from point to point

through history without really showing the scale, jump over the peaks that doesnt adhere, and pinpoint whichever peaks that you want to present as up/down trend,

the effect is phenomenal

Edited October 7, 2019 by brokenbone

[Fruit Trader]

11 minutes ago, overherebc said:

A few minutes after I posted that word I regretted it.

All it does is bring out insults and wanna be politicians.

Sorry to all.

I understand, one must apply a little common sense to these posts.

[monkfish]

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

That video starts out with the comment that the last decade was the warmest in the last 800,000 years. A total lie. You don't even have to go back a 1000 years to find warmer temperatures, and the majority of last 8000 years were warmer than now. If they aren't going to even attempt to tell the truth, how can they expect sympathy  for their movement.

I bet most people who saw that video just read that and believed it.

 

Depends where you measure that temperature graph is for Greenland.
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
 

Quote

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic.

 

Quote

However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific.

Here's another graph from the Northern hemisphere for the past 2000.

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by monkfish

[Lacessit]

It is interesting how, when scientists come up with nice things like smartphones and extension of the average human life span, it's accepted as part of our normal evolution to a better standard of living.

However, when we invent nasty things such as nuclear weapons, or start telling the populace they are heading for climate change unless they pull their fingers out, we get excoriated. Every right-wing journalist with zero training in scientific principles wants to hang us from the nearest lamp post.

There's a lot of ungrateful sods out there. Some are on this thread.

[monkfish]

3 hours ago, brokenbone said:

co2 doesnt increase temperature, but what it does do is increasing biomass.

its not a coincidence that greenhouse owners & salt aquarium owners artificially increase co2

several times over what nature today provide,

plants are starving from lack of co2 compared to

historical levels they thrived in

They shouldn't be starving if you check the graph below lol.

CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.
Why do you make so much stuff up do you have your own blog full with such misinformation?

Edited October 7, 2019 by monkfish

[monkfish]

Another effect of CO2 emissions acidification of the Oceans

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Just as I won't waste my time responding to your posts, because you have obviously have an opinion set in concrete on the issue.

Yes, Climate changes and there is nothing humans can do to stop it changing. We might be able to make some changes, but they may make things worse than they would have been anyway. Saying that we can "limit" temperature rise to x degrees is a nonsense, but politicians use the excuse to tax things like sheep and cows belching.

I already live as ecologically mindful as I can, but I'm not giving up my petrol powered car if it costs me to change to an electric one, and if I want to travel internationally I'll fly.

[monkfish]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Soooooo, explain how the climate was warmer during Roman times and we can't have contributed to it as long before industrial revolution?

If the dogma was correct, all the glaciers on the planet would be receding but they ain't- google it.

According to the information I heard, humans contribute 3% of all atmospheric CO2- tell me how that makes a difference?

Water vapour is apparently the biggest green house "gas". However, can't tax that.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

[Nyezhov]

58 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Nothing you would consider considering.????

I only consider stuff that is written in english, that sets forth coherent supportable facts and doesnt contain vaguely supported inferences and political bias.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It is interesting how, when scientists come up with nice things like smartphones and extension of the average human life span, it's accepted as part of our normal evolution to a better standard of living.

However, when we invent nasty things such as nuclear weapons, or start telling the populace they are heading for climate change unless they pull their fingers out, we get excoriated. Every right-wing journalist with zero training in scientific principles wants to hang us from the nearest lamp post.

There's a lot of ungrateful sods out there. Some are on this thread.

I suppose that includes me.

Smartphones are very polluting to make, and there are too many people on the planet already, and old people use too much treasure to keep alive. It's not a good thing to extend the already too long life span of humans at the expense of the taxpayers. Fine if they want to pay for it themselves.

 

start telling the populace they are heading for climate change unless they pull their fingers out

because we don't believe the propaganda, or know that what we can do isn't going to change climate change anyway. I do think we should stop polluting the environment and clean the planet up. A good start would be to stop making polluting smart phones, and electric car batteries.

 

 

 

[brokenbone]

19 minutes ago, monkfish said:

They shouldn't be starving if you check the graph below lol.

CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.
Why do you make so much stuff up do you have your own blog full with such misinformation?

plants die below 150 co2 ppm, optimal is 1200+ ppm,

so we have a long way to go in re-introducing co2 into the cycle of life. greenhouse owners and salt water aquarium owners show us the way how to promote life by artificially

adding bottled co2 to promote life growth

a team from oz has already disclosed

the positive effects we are now seeing from the vital increase of co2,

but we can do so much more for life,

a 3-fold increase of co2 should be within our capability, if we just put our backs into it

Edited October 7, 2019 by brokenbone

[Nyezhov]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It is interesting how, when scientists come up with nice things like smartphones and extension of the average human life span, it's accepted as part of our normal evolution to a better standard of living.

However, when we invent nasty things such as nuclear weapons, or start telling the populace they are heading for climate change unless they pull their fingers out, we get excoriated. Every right-wing journalist with zero training in scientific principles wants to hang us from the nearest lamp post.

There's a lot of ungrateful sods out there. Some are on this thread.

Somehow, I cant connect smartphones to radical restructuring of the world economy and the downgrading of the economic lifestyles in some countries in favour of others, all to be dictated by an elite that subscribes to the philosophy that humankind is a virus, that capitalism is bloodsucking, that power is the ultimate goal and that the vanguard knows best.

 

And you arent a scientist, you are a golfer and a lover, so dont feel insulted. Unless the scientist in you refuses to consider basic questions, viz:

 

What was the temperature in 1900 that forms a baseline to conclude that the earth is warming at all? Thats all I need anaswered. How warm was it on Octeber 7, 1900 in Kaktovik, Alaska?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Somehow, I cant connect smartphones to radical restructuring of the world economy and the downgrading of the economic lifestyles in some countries in favour of others, all to be dictated by an elite that subscribes to the philosophy that humankind is a virus, that capitalism is bloodsucking, that power is the ultimate goal and that the vanguard knows best.

 

And you arent a scientist, you are a golfer and a lover, so dont feel insulted. Unless the scientist in you refuses to consider basic questions, viz:

 

What was the temperature in 1900 that forms a baseline to conclude that the earth is warming at all? Thats all I need anaswered. How warm was it on Octeber 7, 1900 in Kaktovik, Alaska?

Facts don't come into it. What matters is teenagers that know nothing about anything ( simply because they haven't been alive lo ng enough to know much ) telling everyone else that "something must be done". Of course they don't actually know what "something" is. Why bother with facts when they can carry signs saying that the sky is falling, and it's all the older generation's fault.

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, Climate changes and there is nothing humans can do to stop it changing. We might be able to make some changes, but they may make things worse than they would have been anyway. Saying that we can "limit" temperature rise to x degrees is a nonsense, but politicians use the excuse to tax things like sheep and cows belching.

I already live as ecologically mindful as I can, but I'm not giving up my petrol powered car if it costs me to change to an electric one, and if I want to travel internationally I'll fly.

I beg to differ. The Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion has already demonstrated with enough political will, it is possible to successfully turn around an environmental issue.

Human ingenuity can fix or alleviate climate change. The technology is already there to convert us from a carbon to a hydrogen fuelling system. There are a lot of vested interests fighting a rearguard action against that.

We can reduce our demands for energy and resources. Consider the mobile phone. 20 years ago it was the size of a housebrick. Or cars. Not many made with 4 - 6 litre engines nowadays, because carmakers can't sell them.

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I only consider stuff that is written in english, that sets forth coherent supportable facts and doesnt contain vaguely supported inferences and political bias.

I'm shocked. Pomposity does not become you.