9 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Two Chinese people being treated for pneumonic plague as authorities clamp down on online panic

From ABC News Australia on line

Scary stuff.

Entirely predictable as people are crammed into ever more crowded living conditions, but seems the scientists were more concerned with "other" stuff.

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I do. However, there seems to be an argument by denialists children are incapable of independent thought. I'm sure Mozart, John Von Neumann and Judit Polgar would find that proposition ludicrous.

No idea who the last 2 are, but there are always exceptions to the rule. Anyway, in a world where people think the Kardashians are actually important, some adults never developed independent thought.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That is such "old" thinking. With AI robotics old people will not need children to look after them, and anyway, with increased prosperity children don't look after their aged parents. They put them in facilities for the un wanted.

When families live in cities, they don't even have anywhere for parents to live with them. Those apartments are tiny.

How on earth will children even be able to support parents when AI robotics has destroyed their job and they are on a "living wage" pittance?

 

IMO Japanese women don't even want children, or to get married. They'd rather have a career than have to look after some overworked man.

In Singapore, educated women are so reluctant to get married or have children that the government was getting involved to try and make people get married.

 

BTW, if men had to carry a baby around for 9 months, suffer morning sickness and ruin their body, the human race would have died out long ago.

Ah, technology will solve social problems, in this case care of the elderly.

 

Now were have I heard that before?!

49 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ah, technology will solve social problems, in this case care of the elderly.

 

Now were have I heard that before?!

Ah, the usual witty retort that adds nothing to the conversation.

 

The elderly better hope that technology will help them as nothing else will. Families take them into their already too small house with no back yard to build a granny flat- riiiigggghhhhttttt. The days of the quarter acre section long gone in NZ. Rest homes cost a fortune and impossible for the non rich.

Do children even visit their elderly rellies any more, except maybe at Xmas or on their birthday?

 

A I, in case one didn't know, wasn't even a possibility till now. It's something "new".

The possibility exists for robots that converse with the owner, take them for walks, feed them, clean them up etc etc etc.

All it takes is some inventor with the desire to help old people. 

20 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

I agree, has been happening in cycles for millions of years. The BIG problem is pollution of the environment, which has to be reduced or we are all doomed.

That climate has always changed is not in dispute. It's a matter of rate. Why is it so hard for denialists to get this?

16 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's quite fascinating denialists decry children participating in the climate change debate, while millions of children are indoctrinated to believe in something they cannot see, hear or feel across a spectrum of religions without objection.

At least you are equating climate change hysteria with religion. That is the first step out of the matrix.

26 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That climate has always changed is not in dispute. It's a matter of rate. Why is it so hard for denialists to get this?

Why? Isn't that obvious? It's because proxy records of past changes in climate are not as accurate and reliable as modern instrumental records.

 

Consider the uncertainties and differences of opinion about the global existence of the MWP and LIA, and/or whether the global average temperatures during the MWP were as warm or even warmer than today.
 

Just now, VincentRJ said:

Why? Isn't that obvious? It's because proxy records of past changes in climate are not as accurate and reliable as modern instrumental records.

 

Consider the uncertainties and differences of opinion about the global existence of the MWP and LIA, and/or whether the global average temperatures during the MWP were as warm or even warmer than today.
 

It's funny. The author of that survey on meteorologists opinions about climate change, was told by many that if had changed the question to the last 50 years instead of the last 150 years, even more would have agreed that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring.

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's funny. The author of that survey on meteorologists opinions about climate change, was told by many that if had changed the question to the last 50 years instead of the last 150 years, even more would have agreed that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring.

Is that because the further you go back, the less it seems likely that ACC is occurring?

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Is that because the further you go back, the less it seems likely that ACC is occurring?

No, just because there was a sharp acceleration in temperature rise in the last 50 years.

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No, just because there was a sharp acceleration in temperature rise in the last 50 years.

Define sharp

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Define sharp

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

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

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

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

I though you were going to show the last 50 years. We all know the temperature has been rising for 10,000 years. Which surprisingly makes recent years the hottest in 10,000 years.

 

When you fill a bucket with water, it gets the most full at the end of the process. Funny how that works.

Just now, canuckamuck said:

I though you were going to show the last 50 years. We all know the temperature has been rising for 10,000 years. Which surprisingly makes recent years the hottest in 10,000 years.

 

When you fill a bucket with water, it gets the most full at the end of the process. Funny how that works.

You asked me how sharp? I gave you a link to show how sharp the rise has been in the last 50 years, and now you come up with some irrelevant fluff.

Seems to me your definitive wiki link shows an elementary level graph with an increase in warming starting at beginning of the 20th century. Very hard to pick out the sharp increase of the last 50 years. I do see two periods of warming that are  identical. one of them is obviously the 40 years of warming from before WW2. More than 50 years ago. ????

25 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Seems to me your definitive wiki link shows an elementary level graph with an increase in warming starting at beginning of the 20th century. Very hard to pick out the sharp increase of the last 50 years. I do see two periods of warming that are  identical. one of them is obviously the 40 years of warming from before WW2. More than 50 years ago. ????

Yes but the first is a return to the mean. The second is an unprecedented jump above it.

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes but the first is a return to the mean. The second is an unprecedented jump above it.

If you have warming that is returning to a mean (I assume temperature), how is it possible that jumping above the mean is unprecedented? 
 

As I understand the term mean, it would not be possible to be below it, without ever being above it. 
 

Please correct me if my understanding is in error.

 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes but the first is a return to the mean. The second is an unprecedented jump above it.

Unprecedented is a bit of an overstatement

 

24 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Unprecedented is a bit of an overstatement

 

From the looks of the graph, I'm not surprised that you didn't link to the source.

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

From the looks of the graph, I'm not surprised that you didn't link to the source.

Shoot the data, not the messenger....

9 minutes ago, rabas said:

Shoot the data, not the messenger....

And how does one tell if the data is reliable if there is no source given? Because the Internet is one deep repository of pure unadulterated truth?

Didn't you claim to be a scientist?

Let India fix the caste system first.

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

From the looks of the graph, I'm not surprised that you didn't link to the source.

I knew you would like it.

I have had that on the computer for a long time, just thought I would dust it off. The data is correct however.

An unadulterated version can be found here. Link

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

I knew you would like it.

I have had that on the computer for a long time, just thought I would dust it off. The data is correct however.

An unadulterated version can be found here. Link

Typical tripe from that website. Did you notice this sentence right underneath the graph?:

 

This graphic is used to illustrate the Younger Dryas event – it is not part of the paper discussed below – Anthony

So either the wattsup site is the ultimate source, which makes it valueless, or it's taken from somewhere else that's not identified. Nice try. Actually, come to think of it, it wasn't even that.

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And how does one tell if the data is reliable if there is no source given? Because the Internet is one deep repository of pure unadulterated truth?

Didn't you claim to be a scientist?

I assumed you would be familiar with reliable sources for this data and would  check its validity (if you had doubts) and refute whatever was necessary. That's science!   Yes I am, I am a chemical physicist.

Just now, rabas said:

I assumed you would be familiar with reliable sources for this data and would  check its validity (if you had doubts) and refute whatever was necessary. That's science!   Yes I am, I am a chemical physicist.

As the mods have made repeatedly clear for obvious reason, it you make a claim then you should be prepared to back it up with valid evidence. 

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

As the mods have made repeatedly clear for obvious reason, it you make a claim then you should be prepared to back it up with valid evidence. 

 

People can post things and don't have to be compelled by you or anyone to jump at your demands. So much Jr. Modding going around this forum its really weird. 

3 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

People can post things and don't have to be compelled by you or anyone to jump at your demands. So much Jr. Modding going around this forum its really weird. 

Honorable people back up their claims. 

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Honorable people back up their claims. 

Fine, here is a much less illustrative version of the same GISP2 data From NOAA (LINK) and the other graph so you can compare the top line in blue with graph I originally used, without the emojis.

 

I am sure you can find some other technicalities to argue instead of just presenting your own evidence.

14 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

Climate change is a normal process. Consider the most recent events:

The Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D.)

"The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes..." https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

The Little Ice Age

"The Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 900–1300 ce) and preceded the present period of warming that began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Estimates of temperature variations for the Northern Hemisphere and central England from 1000 to 2000 ce." https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

 

My guess is that they praised God during the former, and blamed witches during the later.

 

 

 

Thank you thank you thank you. I'm so glad you brought up that medieval period article. It's by Donald J. Easterbrook.

"Easterbrook gave a speech at the 2006 Geological Society of America annual meeting, in which he stated:

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC."^[3]

To give Easterbrook credit, were it the case that CO2 has no effect on global temperatures, as Easterbrook maintains. his prediction would have been a reasonable one.

 

As for the second article, did you notice that it references the Northern Hemisphere. At any rate, there was a massive study recently published in Nature, that showed that neither the Medieval Warming Period nor the Little Ice age affected the entire globe at one time.

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

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf?referrer_access_token=xsREMC-kwsmtKpraxx2C1tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OFAuvUf3smNPgQh_x6w3tkX-JXRoLf0zBLgBVwxe-KouP-4idIf_fQCqBL7TMNJ6lz_Upqg2JPT8XRijMO8NcwpRWaCn7xCz_mExE1_4wsNqah9D65ox91KY5DFM4b1TjamqrHXlBj8ERmf9roM7VEtB8Dk4GuXW9Uk0FDpdzYgpfQin3T657dwNMpVX2rTOi5250wMPQ8lJY-GUJMfviMV4200fsoRqSnI1p6YiKxu840K9uFa9UY7xSVxOyQC_Q%3D&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com

Current Warming Is Unparalleled in the Past 2,000 Years

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/current-warming-is-unparalleled-in-the-past-2-000-years/