Antarctic sea ice at record low for end of June, warns Met Office

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, ICU Kid said:

70s = Coming Ice Age

80s = Acid Rain

90s = Hole in the ozone layer

2000s = Global warming

2010s = Present = Climate Change

 

All BS.  Never ends.  More taxes please!!!!

 

“An expert is someone who articulates the needs of those in power”  Henry A. Kissinger

 

Coming ice age for sure, but not now, 

Acid rain was very real and many lakes lost their fish and more around in europe

Hole in ozone layers is one success story, if you did not know by now, and was real

Climate change, who denies that? 

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, ICU Kid said:

Exactly.  The climate changes: Hot in summer / cold in winter.

Some years are colder or hotter than others.

 

The terms 'heat wave' and 'cold snap' are older than the oldest of TV members - nothing new but *currently being weaponised for power and money grabs*

The aim could be 15 min cities and 'climate lockdowns'.  

 

Latest trick seems to be altering the colour of weather maps to red and brown to scare people (see image below)

 

Also note that CO2 accounts for 0.04% of our atmosphere - plants need it to survive.

some of us will know more before we die, I have time to wait, and in the mean time, no damage to at least try to change bad habits and destrying the planet more. But how the politicians trying to solve the real problem, I doubt anything will change, because it is all about the economic war continiously escalating. 

[Rimmer]

Unattributed also an off topic troll post has been removed

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, ICU Kid said:

70s = Coming Ice Age

80s = Acid Rain

90s = Hole in the ozone layer

2000s = Global warming

2010s = Present = Climate Change

 

All BS.  Never ends.  More taxes please!!!!

 

“An expert is someone who articulates the needs of those in power”  Henry A. Kissinger

 

 

If ever there was a demonstration of an utter lack of knowledge, you have just provided it. Acid rain was a huge problem in the North America and Europe thanks to the prevailing winds carrying sulphuric and nitric acid generated by coal burning power plants.  And once those power plants were compelled to scrub their emissions, the problem greatly ameliorated. Given that coal is no longer economically viable in regions where power plants must scrub emissions. the problem should get even smaller over time.

 

What Happened to Acid Rain?

During the 1970s and ’80s the phenomenon called acid rain was one of the most well-known environmental problems in Europe and North America, appearing frequently in news features and mentioned, on occasion, in situation comedies of the day. Since that time, the visibility of acid rain in the media has been supplanted by stories about climate change, global warming, biodiversity issues, and other environmental concerns. Acid rain still occurs, but its impact on Europe and North America is far less than it was in the 1970s and ’80s, because of strong air pollution regulations in those regions.

https://www.britannica.com/story/what-happened-to-acid-rain

 

Actually, the ozone hole layer was also successfully addressed thanks largely to the initiative of 2 Marxists: Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Basically it meant replacing Chloroflourocarbon gases with substitute propellants and refrigerants.

Ozone Hole: How We Saved the Planet

"Scientists concluded it was seemingly benign industrial chemicals called CFCs that were used in everyday products from hairspray to deodorant. If continued unchecked, the world faced a perilous future — one in which humans would be forced to hide from daylight due to the harmful unfiltered UV radiation, and one where agriculture and entire ecosystems would collapse. Ozone Hole: How We Saved the Planet tells the incredible true story of how scientists, world leaders and two of the most unlikely eco-warriors — Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher —  successfully worked together to prevent an environmental catastrophe. The result was a history-changing treaty that just may have saved the world."

https://cgcs.mit.edu/ozone-hole-how-we-saved-planet

Of course, this occurred in the era before the political right decided that Science = Marxism. And, in fact, te ozone hole has since shrunk considerably.

 

As for global warming and climate change, it's the same thing. It was first called Global Warming because that was the obvious and inevitable effect of the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It was the great 19th physicist John Tindall who discovered the greenhouse gas effect. It was he who pointed out that without the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be a lot colder and a lot less hospitable to life. By the end of the 19th century exactly how powerful the warming effect of CO2 was had been measured. In other words, 19th century physicists would have had no problem accepting global warming. It's that basic a propostion. Now the term climate change is used instead as research showed the effects of global warming aren't confined just to increased heat but to the fact that increased heat leads to other climatological changes.

 

[JackGats]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

And maybe someday that will happen again. What is it about most of you denialists that you don't understand the issue of the rate of change?

The only man who understands rate of change is Al Gore. In 2009 he predicted the ice cap would be gone by 2015.

 

 

[Rimmer]

Off topic video has been removed

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, JackGats said:

The only man who understands rate of change is Al Gore. In 2009 he predicted the ice cap would be gone by 2015.

 

 

Can you tell me where Al Gore has published his scientific research on the subject? The reason denialists like you focus on celebrities and popularizers is that it distracts from what the climatological scientific community's research is telling us. Research of which the predictions are repeatedly and increasingly being borne out by reality. You've got nothing.

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Really? You were reading scientific papers on climate change in the 70's? Can you share with us what journals you subscribed to? I'm sure you wouldn't take reports from the popular press as accurately representing what the scientific consensus was at the time. That would be foolish.

I was making News & current affairs shows for the BBC at the time (White City & Lime Grove). Place was full of scientists being interviewed about the coming ice age.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I was making News & current affairs shows for the BBC at the time (White City & Lime Grove). Place was full of scientists being interviewed about the coming ice age.

Thanks for your personal recollection of what you allege those scientists were saying. I got news for you. What counts in science is published research.  I'll stick to what the scientific literature of that time actually said.

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for your personal recollection of what you allege those scientists were saying. I got news for you. What counts in science is published research.  I'll stick to what the scientific literature of that time actually said.

You remember or have copies of the original documents published at the time?

Or you are reading the revised data published on the internet today?

[Hummin]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for your personal recollection of what you allege those scientists were saying. I got news for you. What counts in science is published research.  I'll stick to what the scientific literature of that time actually said.

The problem is to separate science from media created bull pie headlines, and those who only seems to read headlines only.

 

Senstions and twisted truth's sells, and always have, and those who only live by headlines only as well from mouth to mouth science. 

 

Im done spending to much time debating what most scientists agree on, and what I learn we do tonthis planet, which is of no good.

 

If someone can not get the grip about what we do to the air and water as well what we, or most consume, and the amount of what we consume is wrong, then not even a god can save us. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

You remember or have copies of the original document published at the time?

Or you are reading the revised data published on the internet today?

Are you alleging that researchers in a peer reviewed journal reviewed scientific research published in the 70's, and somehow altered it and presented the altered results? And that the reviewers didn't catch them? Or that the reviewers conspired with them? Either way, that's a very serious charge to make. You have evidence?

[Hummin]

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then

 

The whole article

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s/

 

 

Another article

https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/media-influences-ice-age-predictions

 

 

And another one

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

 

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then

 

The whole article

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s/

 

 

Another article

https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/media-influences-ice-age-predictions

 

 

And another one

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

 

Actually, I posted a link on the previous page to an abstract of the research. Here's a link to the entire paper:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml?tab_body=pdf

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Are you alleging that researchers in a peer reviewed journal reviewed scientific research published in the 70's, and somehow altered it and presented the altered results? And that the reviewers didn't catch them? Or that the reviewers conspired with them? Either way, that's a very serious charge to make. You have evidence?

Google routinely disappears documents that were easily available in the past.

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Google routinely disappears documents that were easily available in the past.

As I noted, this is a piece of peer reviewed research that cites journals of that period. Journals that existed before there was an internet. Hard physical copies of these journals exist. Are you claiming that these researchers destroyed or altered these journals? You have any evidence? And are you seriously claiming that there hasn't proliferated a huge number of denialist websites? Don't the people who operate those also have access to the research of the day? Why haven't they refuted it?

You've got nothing except empty conspiratorial allegations to offer.

[still kicking]

9 hours ago, bignok said:

Temps havent changed much at all in 20 years despite the hype. Actually cold today.

Tell that the Greece 

[ICU Kid]

2 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Tell that the Greece 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-greece-rhodes-fires-firefighters-30534110

Greece Rhodes fires: Firefighters say there are 'indications of arson ...

21 hours ago ... The fires that have engulfed the Greek island of Rhodes may have been started on purpose, firefighters believe. Families are continuing to ...

[metisdead]

A post with a link to a Conspiracy-Pseudoscience has been removed, the replies were also removed.

[ICU Kid]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

research papers supporting global warming even back then outnumbered those supporting global cooling. 

You counted them yourself did you? 

Or just relying on a quick google search to confirm your biases?

 

Thought so.

 

If you care so much, why not just give up oil, petrol, air con eating meat etc.

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, ICU Kid said:

You counted them yourself did you? 

Or just relying on a quick google search to confirm your biases?

 

Thought so.

 

If you care so much, why not just give up oil, petrol, air con eating meat etc.

What's really bizarre about your comments is that the researchers for that piece, as is the rule in scholarly work, laid out the methodology in detail:

"However, given that an opinion
survey does not capture the full state of the science
of the time, we conducted a rigorous literature review
of the American Meteorological Society's electronic
archives as well as those of Nature and the scholarly
journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR). To capture
the relevant topics, we used global temperature, global
warming, and global cooling, as well as a variety of
other less directly relevant search terms. Additionally,
in order to make the survey more complete, even at
the expense of no longer being fully reproducible
by electronic search techniques, many references
mentioned in the papers located by these searches
were evaluated, as were references mentioned in
various history-of-science documents. Because the
time period attributed to the global cooling consen-
sus is typically described as the 1970s, the literature
search was limited to the period from 1965 through
1979."

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml?tab_body=pdf

 

It is also peer-reviewed. Whereas the Steven Goddard website offers no methodology at all. How do you know those articles weren't cherry-picked and that Goddard ignored articles that reported on scientists predicting global warming?

 

And as is typical of those who have no good evidence to offer in rebuttal, you end up by resorting to personal comments. You've got nothing.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Hummin said:

We all love that when a discussion ends up calling others sheeples and leftist and all other names to call out someones opinions based on accapted science, dont we? Well who is blindfolded and stupid, is yet to be proved, but not today!

 

Im not going to post a link you most likely will not care to read!

 

short explanation

What does Earth Overshoot Day measure?

 

Overshoot is driven by four key factors: 1) how much we consume, 2) how efficiently products are made, 3) how many of us there are, and 4) how much nature's ecosystems are able to produce.

 

Hmmm.

IMO we consume too much, there are too many of us and nature can't cope with it.

The problem is the IMO idiots that want an endlessly increasing economy ( instead of learning to live with less, and certainly no more unfixable products and massive amounts of waste ), while the consumer units are brainwashed into thinking that they just must have the latest overpriced brand name rubbish.

We don't need more people, we need to use what we have better.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, ICU Kid said:

If you care so much, why not just give up oil, petrol, air con eating meat etc.

along with international air travel, the internet, and imported goods.

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmm.

IMO we consume too much, there are too many of us and nature can't cope with it.

The problem is the IMO idiots that want an endlessly increasing economy ( instead of learning to live with less, and certainly no more unfixable products and massive amounts of waste ), while the consumer units are brainwashed into thinking that they just must have the latest overpriced brand name rubbish.

We don't need more people, we need to use what we have better.

Amen, while good long lasting quality should had been appreciated more. 

[gwapofarang]

23 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Yep, they've rewritten history to match their new power play.

But I was there in the 1970s and I remember all the ice age predictions.

Remembering is now considered fake news or the new term "mal information". Soon to be outlawed as hate thinking.

 

Eat that fake meat its good for you, trust our science or be labeled a "climate denier" (ain't that a cute phrase). Georacism coming soon. At least now you can say your a girl and get out of jail free. Get laid while you're locked up too, how good is that?

[BritManToo]

On 7/24/2023 at 2:09 PM, placeholder said:

Really? You were reading scientific papers on climate change in the 70's? Can you share with us what journals you subscribed to? I'm sure you wouldn't take reports from the popular press as accurately representing what the scientific consensus was at the time. That would be foolish.

Found them!

How many would you like to see?

Letter to Pres Nixon from 42 investigators .......

Bit fuzzy so text here https://www.thestreet.com/economonitor/us/an-important-letter-sent-to-the-president-about-the-danger-of-climate-change

 

Confirmed by satellites ..........

 

Backed up by American scientists .........

 

The link I gave at the top had links to nearly 47 pages on scientific cooling/warming predictions in the past 150 years  ..... nearly all the Ice age predictions have had their pages deleted in a fairly thorough rewriting of the history of climate change science.

[placeholder]

39 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Found them!

How many would you like to see?

Letter to Pres Nixon from 42 investigators .......

Bit fuzzy so text here https://www.thestreet.com/economonitor/us/an-important-letter-sent-to-the-president-about-the-danger-of-climate-change

 

Confirmed by satellites ..........

 

Backed up by American scientists .........

 

The link I gave at the top had links to nearly 47 pages on scientific cooling/warming predictions in the past 150 years  ..... nearly all the Ice age predictions have had their pages deleted in a fairly thorough rewriting of the history of climate change science.

The science of climatology got its start in the 70s when computers became barely powerful enough to start crunching the necessary data. So who cares what people said before that? They simply didn't have the tools necessary to investigate.. Or maybe you believe that science is like fine wine: the older it is, the better.

[scottiejohn]

40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The science of climatology got its start in the 70s when computers became barely powerful enough to start crunching the necessary data. So who cares what people said before that? They simply didn't have the tools necessary to investigate.. Or maybe you believe that science is like fine wine: the older it is, the better.

So the "Scientists" etc are basing this report about the world' future on data only collected since 1979!  

What are they comparing it to, data from BC1000 or Meg's crystal ball predictions?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So the "Scientists" etc are basing this report about the world' future on data only collected since 1979!  

What are they comparing it to, data from BC1000 or Meg's crystal ball predictions?

https://www.britannica.com/science/paleoclimatology

[thaibeachlovers]

The penguins will be happy, at least. Less sea ice means they have less distance to cover to get to their rookeries, which are ( for Adelies ) on bare land.