Jump to content

Climate activists disrupt British cities with 'summer uprising'


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The doctoring of temperature records is a matter of public record.

 

The charts come from NASA.

 

The charts you posted have ‘NASA’ written on them, that does not mean they came from NASA.

 

Prove me wrong and post a link to where You got the chats from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^^

Well, that rather depends on whether you accept that the data does come from NASA, or is part of a "Hogwash ‘Change the Data’ conspiracy."

I think you are producing two graphs that from the links we know were generated a decade apart from each other and expecting us to believe, without evidence they were generated from the same data.

 

[Edit]

The animated graphics were generated elsewhere, can you please provide a link to where you got those from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If anything demonstrates how low you will go it's stuff like this. It took me about a minute to go to this page to find the answer to this question:

 Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?

Here's the linkhttps://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q215

And there's a link in that answer that offers a more detailed explanation.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/introduction

And here's what you don't seem to know about these adjustments: They had no significant impact on the global mean.

Excellent, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think you are producing two graphs that from the links we know were generated a decade apart from each other and expecting us to believe, without evidence they were generated from the same data.

No, I'm not.

 

I'm saying the data was changed. There's no debate about that; it was changed. The preferred term is "statistical homogenization", which you can find multiple citings of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, I'm not.

 

I'm saying the data was changed. There's no debate about that; it was changed. The preferred term is "statistical homogenization", which you can find multiple citings of.

Before you wrote "doctored" now it's "changed". So much fun catching you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m sure you can, but the aim is concise substance not breathless rambling.

 

Why do you have to engage in insults? Paraphrasing is using your own words to clarify someone elses statement. Why do you assume that a grammatically correct sentence which is very long, has to be breathless rambling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Actually, I didn't quote more than around 3 sentences. The rest I paraphrased. However, it's not an issue. I simply won't quote. My English is so good, I can make one sentence as long as several paragraphs.

I got good news for you. If it's your own words, you're allowed as many sentences as you care to afflict the rest of us with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

No, I'm not.

 

I'm saying the data was changed. There's no debate about that; it was changed. The preferred term is "statistical homogenization", which you can find multiple citings of.

Bristolboy has provided an excellent explanation at post 127, we don't need your 'preferred terms', the links he provided give an actual explanation.

 

...

I got my Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics at Edinburgh.

 

Where did you get yours?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

Global warming is a hoax

No, it can’t be!!!  AOC gave us 12 years to live and that was around 6 months ago. And we know she is a rocket scientist. So, now that I know I only have 11 years left, give or take a few months. I think I will go out and do something, as soon as it cools off a little outside. This AC feels way to good right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the dinosaurs had their fling for zillions of years only to get taken out, so it's our turn now which will end up the same way, I am quite sure of that...

 

Mind you, the religious folk will come on here to say humans are different, we will be saved.....????......If they do I will ask why on "earth" do these bloody hairs keep growing out of my hooter if I am special.....:w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Threads like this could theoretically go on for ever because the issue is so complex and uncertain.
The agenda for tackling climate change has been set. The move towards renewables will continue, and many people will continue to suffer the consequences of extreme weather events, as they have in the past, regardless of whether the climate was in a warm phase or a cool phase.

 

Many civilizations have collapsed in the past due to a fairly rapid change in the  climate that they were unable to adapt to. This is one reason why I'm very skeptical about claims that the current rate of warming is unprecedented.

 

A recent example is the collapse of the Khmer empire in Cambodia, during the 14th and early 15th centuries. Here's my two-sentence quote from the following Geographical article. 
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/angkor-wat-civilization-collapsed-floods-drought-climate-change/

"But then, in the mid to late 1300s, Angkor began suffering from a persistent drought. This was followed by several years of unusually strong monsoon rains, producing extensive flooding with which the city’s infrastructure seemed to have been unable to cope."

 

Please note, the following is a paraphrase.

 

It was assumed for many decades that the collapse of the Khmer civilization was due to an invasion by the Thais. This is now understood to have been only part of the problem. People began leaving the Angkor Wat region before the Thais invaded, because of the rapid changes in climate. The half-destroyed region was then invaded by the Thais, and the Khmers who had previously left, had no reason to return, so the cities became lost in the jungle.

 

The lesson to be learned here is, adaption is the key. Modern societies have far better engineering capabilities than the ancient Khmers. We could build more flood mitigation dams and long water pipes to irrigate arid regions, and/or more desalination plants, if there was the political will.

 

Let's do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Threads like this could theoretically go on for ever because the issue is so complex and uncertain.
The agenda for tackling climate change has been set. The move towards renewables will continue, and many people will continue to suffer the consequences of extreme weather events, as they have in the past, regardless of whether the climate was in a warm phase or a cool phase.

 

Many civilizations have collapsed in the past due to a fairly rapid change in the  climate that they were unable to adapt to. This is one reason why I'm very skeptical about claims that the current rate of warming is unprecedented.

 

A recent example is the collapse of the Khmer empire in Cambodia, during the 14th and early 15th centuries. Here's my two-sentence quote from the following Geographical article. 
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/angkor-wat-civilization-collapsed-floods-drought-climate-change/

"But then, in the mid to late 1300s, Angkor began suffering from a persistent drought. This was followed by several years of unusually strong monsoon rains, producing extensive flooding with which the city’s infrastructure seemed to have been unable to cope."

 

Please note, the following is a paraphrase.

 

It was assumed for many decades that the collapse of the Khmer civilization was due to an invasion by the Thais. This is now understood to have been only part of the problem. People began leaving the Angkor Wat region before the Thais invaded, because of the rapid changes in climate. The half-destroyed region was then invaded by the Thais, and the Khmers who had previously left, had no reason to return, so the cities became lost in the jungle.

 

The lesson to be learned here is, adaption is the key. Modern societies have far better engineering capabilities than the ancient Khmers. We could build more flood mitigation dams and long water pipes to irrigate arid regions, and/or more desalination plants, if there was the political will.

 

Let's do it.

I think the world is more interested in money than what's happening to the planet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, transam said:

I think the world is more interested in money than what's happening to the planet...

We'll probably have to wait until bulldozers, excavators and trench diggers can work efficiently on solar-charged batteries before we tackle the real problem of protecting people from extreme weather events. ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Threads like this could theoretically go on for ever because the issue is so complex and uncertain.
The agenda for tackling climate change has been set. The move towards renewables will continue, and many people will continue to suffer the consequences of extreme weather events, as they have in the past, regardless of whether the climate was in a warm phase or a cool phase.

 

Many civilizations have collapsed in the past due to a fairly rapid change in the  climate that they were unable to adapt to. This is one reason why I'm very skeptical about claims that the current rate of warming is unprecedented.

 

A recent example is the collapse of the Khmer empire in Cambodia, during the 14th and early 15th centuries. Here's my two-sentence quote from the following Geographical article. 
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/angkor-wat-civilization-collapsed-floods-drought-climate-change/

"But then, in the mid to late 1300s, Angkor began suffering from a persistent drought. This was followed by several years of unusually strong monsoon rains, producing extensive flooding with which the city’s infrastructure seemed to have been unable to cope."

 

Please note, the following is a paraphrase.

 

It was assumed for many decades that the collapse of the Khmer civilization was due to an invasion by the Thais. This is now understood to have been only part of the problem. People began leaving the Angkor Wat region before the Thais invaded, because of the rapid changes in climate. The half-destroyed region was then invaded by the Thais, and the Khmers who had previously left, had no reason to return, so the cities became lost in the jungle.

 

The lesson to be learned here is, adaption is the key. Modern societies have far better engineering capabilities than the ancient Khmers. We could build more flood mitigation dams and long water pipes to irrigate arid regions, and/or more desalination plants, if there was the political will.

 

Let's do it.

 

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

History shows that civilizations have flourished during warm periods.

I'm pleased to see my suggestion you do not rely on History to support your case promted you to go read some history. 

 

You've now flipped from telling us earlier that other civilisations have flourished during warm periods to your latest argument 'Many civilizations have collapsed in the past due to a fairly rapid change in the  climate that they were unable to adapt to'. 

 

Your suggestions of the reactive means to respond to the impacts of climate change are already being implemented, though certainly not sufficiently so.

 

What you fail to address is proactive means to adapt to reduce the impacts of human activity on the climate. I understand why you have no wish to go there. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

we don't need your 'preferred terms',

They are not my terms. "Homogenization" is the preferred term used by the US Historical Climate Network, the Berkeley Earth project and others.

 

Quote

... the links he provided give an actual explanation.

There are many explanations of the "statistical homogenization" ranging from it being normal practice to being outright corruption of data sets, and many interpretations in between. You are of course free to believe which ones you want.

 

Only zealots and ideologues would pretend that a single explanation from a single source is necessarily the gospel truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, allen303 said:

No, it can’t be!!!  AOC gave us 12 years to live and that was around 6 months ago. And we know she is a rocket scientist. So, now that I know I only have 11 years left, give or take a few months. I think I will go out and do something, as soon as it cools off a little outside. This AC feels way to good right now.

 

Posts like this lead me to believe AOC is correct. Humanity is doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

They are not my terms. "Homogenization" is the preferred term used by the US Historical Climate Network, the Berkeley Earth project and others.

 

There are many explanations of the "statistical homogenization" ranging from it being normal practice to being outright corruption of data sets, and many interpretations in between. You are of course free to believe which ones you want.

 

Only zealots and ideologues would pretend that a single explanation from a single source is necessarily the gospel truth.

Statistical Homogenization is in fact a scientific term employed widely.

Statistical homogenization of elastic properties of cement paste based on X-ray microtomography images

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768312004647

Sure you can object if you have valid reasons and offer good evidence. But when all you do is offer 2 graphs and no explanation of the discrepancies that's dishonest. An honest person would link to the explanation of why the scientists did this.

But a dishonest person would do exactly as you did. And claim there are other explanations but once again, not offer them or a link to them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You've now flipped from telling us earlier that other civilisations have flourished during warm periods to your latest argument 'Many civilizations have collapsed in the past due to a fairly rapid change in the  climate that they were unable to adapt to'. 

 

I haven't flipped at all. You don't appear to understand the situation. However, because I'm so compassionate I'll attempt to explain it to you. ????

 

You've heard of the Medieval Warm Period, haven't you?
Civilizations tend to flourish during warm periods, but climate is always changing. When it does change, the change can sometimes be so rapid and severe that the civilization fails to adapt and collapses. This is what appears to have happened to the Khmer civilization.

 

The Khmer civilization began around 800 AD and flourished and expanded for the following 5  centuries. This period coincides approximately with the Medieval Warm Period in Europe when the Vikings flourished in Greenland. There have been lots of studies in China, Asia, Africa, New Zealand, and so on, which confirm that the MWP was a global phenomenon. However, the beginning and end of such periods of warming or cooling do not occur simultaneously across the whole globe.

 

What you fail to address is proactive means to adapt to reduce the impacts of human activity on the climate. I understand why you have no wish to go there.

 

Wrong again. It's reasonable that mankind's activities in general have some impact on climate. I'm totally in favour of cleaning up the environment. That includes the view that the governments of all countries should insist that the best emission controls are used for all fossil fuel activities, whether coal-fired power stations or petrol-driven vehicles. All non-organic waste should be either incinerated or recycled. People who carelessly throw empty bottles onto the road side, or leave them on the ground after picnicking, should be fined, as they are in Australia, when caught.

 

Regular burn-off of forest material for agriculture in Myanmar, Thailand, and Indonesia should be banned. Governments should set aside resources for reforestation, and encourage farming practices which do not degrade the soil, destroy soil biodiversity and reduce soil carbon content, which is often a problem with modern agriculture.

 

I'm also in favour of the development of electric vehicles and solar electricity. When I was a kid in the UK over 60 years ago, I recall that the milk in glass bottles was transported in the early hours of the morning  to each home in my suburb, in electric vehicles. 60 years later we haven't yet got affordable electric cars. The development has presumably been stymied in recent decades because it would have increased the requirement for reliable electricity from fossil fuels, for recharging the batteries. How pathetic!

 

Fossil fuels are a limited supply. It is only sensible to develop alternative energy supplies in preparation for a future scarcity of fossil fuels, but let's develop such technology efficiently, using all of those massive subsidies to fund the research. 

 

The great thing about solar power is that solar paint and transparent solar voltaic technologies, when developed after further research, will not have to take up any additional land, as do solar farms and windmills. Walls, car surfaces, and building surfaces can all be painted with thin-film solar paint. Car windows and all windows of buildings might eventually be painted with 'transparent solar voltaic paint' which allows a high proportion of visible light through, but uses the infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths to produce electricity.

 

Here is a recent review of the current state of the Transparent Solar Photovoltaic technologies, plus a two-sentence quote.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118304672
 

"If all the buildings with 90% glass on their surface used transparent solar cells printed on the surface of the glass, the solar cells have the potential to power more than 40% of that building's energy consumption.
Another application of transparent solar cells is in automobile and electronic devices."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you please provide a link to where this 'active graphic' came from? 

 

Not the images used in the graphic, the graphic itself. 

I've had a look at the GIF, but there is no file information attached to it. And as I've had the GIF for a couple of years, I can't recall where it came from. There was a great deal of adverse comment surrounding the changes to the data record and the graph would have appeared in several places.

 

If it's important to you, I suggest Googling "NASA adjusts temperature record" or "NASA doctors data", something along those lines, and you should be able to run it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

I've had a look at the GIF, but there is no file information attached to it. And as I've had the GIF for a couple of years, I can't recall where it came from. There was a great deal of adverse comment surrounding the changes to the data record and the graph would have appeared in several places.

 

If it's important to you, I suggest Googling "NASA adjusts temperature record" or "NASA doctors data", something along those lines, and you should be able to run it down.

You can’t recall where you got the Gif from by you managed to find links to precisely the two NASA publications that the graphs in the Gif were sourced from.

 

OK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I haven't flipped at all. You don't appear to understand the situation. However, because I'm so compassionate I'll attempt to explain it to you. ????

 

You've heard of the Medieval Warm Period, haven't you?
Civilizations tend to flourish during warm periods, but climate is always changing. When it does change, the change can sometimes be so rapid and severe that the civilization fails to adapt and collapses. This is what appears to have happened to the Khmer civilization.

 

The Khmer civilization began around 800 AD and flourished and expanded for the following 5  centuries. This period coincides approximately with the Medieval Warm Period in Europe when the Vikings flourished in Greenland. There have been lots of studies in China, Asia, Africa, New Zealand, and so on, which confirm that the MWP was a global phenomenon. However, the beginning and end of such periods of warming or cooling do not occur simultaneously across the whole globe.

 

 

 

 

Wrong again. It's reasonable that mankind's activities in general have some impact on climate. I'm totally in favour of cleaning up the environment. That includes the view that the governments of all countries should insist that the best emission controls are used for all fossil fuel activities, whether coal-fired power stations or petrol-driven vehicles. All non-organic waste should be either incinerated or recycled. People who carelessly throw empty bottles onto the road side, or leave them on the ground after picnicking, should be fined, as they are in Australia, when caught.

 

Regular burn-off of forest material for agriculture in Myanmar, Thailand, and Indonesia should be banned. Governments should set aside resources for reforestation, and encourage farming practices which do not degrade the soil, destroy soil biodiversity and reduce soil carbon content, which is often a problem with modern agriculture.

 

I'm also in favour of the development of electric vehicles and solar electricity. When I was a kid in the UK over 60 years ago, I recall that the milk in glass bottles was transported in the early hours of the morning  to each home in my suburb, in electric vehicles. 60 years later we haven't yet got affordable electric cars. The development has presumably been stymied in recent decades because it would have increased the requirement for reliable electricity from fossil fuels, for recharging the batteries. How pathetic!

 

Fossil fuels are a limited supply. It is only sensible to develop alternative energy supplies in preparation for a future scarcity of fossil fuels, but let's develop such technology efficiently, using all of those massive subsidies to fund the research. 

 

The great thing about solar power is that solar paint and transparent solar voltaic technologies, when developed after further research, will not have to take up any additional land, as do solar farms and windmills. Walls, car surfaces, and building surfaces can all be painted with thin-film solar paint. Car windows and all windows of buildings might eventually be painted with 'transparent solar voltaic paint' which allows a high proportion of visible light through, but uses the infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths to produce electricity.

 

Here is a recent review of the current state of the Transparent Solar Photovoltaic technologies, plus a two-sentence quote.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118304672
 

"If all the buildings with 90% glass on their surface used transparent solar cells printed on the surface of the glass, the solar cells have the potential to power more than 40% of that building's energy consumption.
Another application of transparent solar cells is in automobile and electronic devices."

Now all we need is your arguments on how much influence human activity is having on the climate.

 

Then we can examine your understanding of the mechanisms by which those influences occur.

 

....

 

Your presumption as to why electric vehicles where not developed is curious, but let’s not wander off in search of curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's called 'research'. You should try it  some time.

I have, and I’ve received a lifetime of tangible and enjoyable rewards for doing so.

 

But that’s an aside. 

 

You are presenting arguments that are exposing your own lack of understanding of data analysis. A little scratching at the surface reveals your arguments to be secondhand, hence my reasonable request for you to provide the source of the Gif you are using to prop up your arguments in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

First, I showed you the GIF, and you demanded a link to the originals. Then I showed you the originals and you demanded a link to the GIF.

 

Don't you think it's about time you stopped being so demanding, and relying on other people to do your work for you?

 

As a further point, the GIF is not the crux of the matter; it's just a rehash of the two NASA graphs which show that the data was changed, a point which is not disputed by anyone, even NASA itself.

 

I've made a reasonable effort to recall the source of the GIF. That's all I am prepared to do, no matter how long you keep on whining about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...