Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Thanks for the link. But it didn't actually show the graph in your post. So I'm not sure where it came from.   But there was this graph on that page:

 

image.png.f4d17b9737a340defba4487b69a59ebb.png

Looks to me like the rate jumps around 1975 and then again in about 2010.

And here's a link to the temperature data year by year starting in 1880: 

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

A general advice is that you stop looking at pictures and instead analyse the data. The graph YOU refer to displays the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures, not the rate of increase (which is NOT accelerating). In kindergarten language, that means "what is the temperature". Yes, the mean temperature is increasing.

 

The graph I provided shows the annual increase.

 

Edited by Forethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're <deleted>@#ed. That's the reason a lot of us aren't having children. Get your act together or say goodbye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Click on the link "Get Data" and you'll get the data. The DATA. It is NOT accelerating.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

In mathematical terms, you need to get the derivate of the temp data to get the rate of change. I seem to remember that was taught at secondary school. Most people don't know how to use it, much less fit a linear approximation or polynomial and get the rate for a given timeframe. Yet they'll happily copy and paste graphs.

 

Yes, it's warming up, been for a century at least. Good. Not fast enough for my tastes, though. Bit surprised about the 1940's hot seasons, as those were around the years the bitter cold winter war was fought between Finland and Russia. I guess it's local up in the arctics.

 

Quote

Weather conditions
See also: Climate of Finland and Cold-weather warfare
The winter of 1939–40 was exceptionally cold with the Karelian Isthmus experiencing a record low temperature of −43 °C (−45 °F) on 16 January 1940.

 

Edited by DrTuner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It's not me telling you, it's NASA. 

 

More questions?

Posting a graphic with NASA written on it is not evidence that it came from NASA.

 

It’s why you rarely, if ever, provide a link to the source of the graphics you post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

So aside from bickering and finger-pointing, what is everyone doing to reduce their carbon footprint?




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I am not consciously doing anything to reduce my carbon footprint. However, I have planted 15,000 trees and live a very low consumer lifestyle. Only go to the city once a week, only use the truck that day. Make and grow most of our own food (fish rice veggies and pigs) Made most of my furniture, a lot of it from reclaimed wood. Air travel less than once a year. Walk to work.

I should be getting those carbon credit checks any day now, you would think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I am not consciously doing anything to reduce my carbon footprint. However, I have planted 15,000 trees and live a very low consumer lifestyle. Only go to the city once a week, only use the truck that day. Make and grow most of our own food (fish rice veggies and pigs) Made most of my furniture, a lot of it from reclaimed wood. Air travel less than once a year. Walk to work.

I should be getting those carbon credit checks any day now, you would think.

Well done.

 

So why all your anger against those who campaign for reducing carbon footprints and the promotion of more sustainable life styles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Posting a graphic with NASA written on it is not evidence that it came from NASA.

 

It’s why you rarely, if ever, provide a link to the source of the graphics you post.

I always provide a link to my sources. I did so In this case as well.

 

More questions?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well done.

 

So why all your anger against those who campaign for reducing carbon footprints and the promotion of more sustainable life styles?

I am not against anyone's lifestyle choices, I am against people making lifestyle choices for me. And I am angry at the lie of catastrophic climate change. I am very pro-environment. I am anti-waste, anti-plastic when possible, and anti-pollution. But CO2 is not pollution it is a massively essential gas and free plant food for the world. 

I rail against the madness that world will end by warming a couple of degrees from cow farts. When we will actually end the world through war, species extinction, and socialistic dysfunction.

Edited by canuckamuck
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I am not against anyone's lifestyle choices, I am against people making lifestyle choices for me. And I am angry at the lie of catastrophic climate change. I am very pro-environment. I am anti-waste, anti-plastic when possible, and anti-pollution. But CO2 is not pollution it is a massively essential gas and free plant food for the world. 

I rail against the madness that world will end by warming a couple of degrees. When we will actually end the world through war, species extinction, and socialistic dysfunction.

CO2 is essential up to a point. Beyond that point it becomes harmful. The principle is widespread in nature. Nature - which is to say everything - relies on balance. The balance is extremely delicate and humans are upsetting the balance. Are you with me that far?

 

The world has already ended for many species in very recent history as humans have ushered in a mass extinction period. Do you not rail against all the loss of species that will most definitely result from warming by a couple of degrees or do you only rail about what threatens your lifestyle?

 

Simple prudence demands a change in lifestyle from everyone, which means slowing down, at least to the rate that the consequences of growth can be dealt with. The politicians haven't yet realised that this is all about slowing down economic growth. They are in for a big shock, but they will get it eventually, and if it takes a little girl to wake them up, be it so.

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JamesBlond said:

CO2 is essential up to a point. Beyond that point it becomes harmful. The principle is widespread in nature. Nature - which is to say everything - relies on balance. The balance is extremely delicate and humans are upsetting the balance. Are you with me that far?

 

The world has already ended for many species in very recent history as humans have ushered in a mass extinction period. Do you not rail against all the loss of species that will most definitely result from warming by a couple of degrees or do you only rail about what threatens your lifestyle?

 

Simple prudence demands a change in lifestyle from everyone, which means slowing down, at least to the rate that the consequences of growth can be dealt with. The politicians haven't yet realised that this is all about slowing down economic growth. They are in for a big shock, but they will get it eventually, and if it takes a little girl to wake them up, be it so.

 

We are not making a meaningful difference to the temperature, and the ecosystems of the world would love you long time if you gave them more CO2.  We increased the CO2 by 40% in 50 years and we see virtually no change in the temperature. None if you factor in the natural warming trend. That's undeniable.

 

The change in lifestyle which is needed, is an improvement of the living conditions and education in the third world and every country that is breeding like rabbits. The west is very well behaved in their lifestyles and population growth. They should be copied not chastised.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The change in lifestyle which is needed, is an improvement of the living conditions and education in the third world and every country that is breeding like rabbits. The west is very well behaved in their lifestyles and population growth. They should be copied not chastised.

This is what no politician wants to talk about. It's easy to see why: less people mean less votes for the politicians that pay for their votes using the climate taxes. It's called "social democrats", a legal form of Robin Hood politics. The pension ponzi schemes also need fresh meat for the machine, with westeners abstaining from breeding, that needs to be imported and as a side effect their values and belief systems get imported, until they become the majority. It's practically suicide by politics.

 

The first step to controlling the population is to remove politicians  and start direct democracy, something that hasn't been tried since the ancient Greece. The technology to enable that has arrived.

Edited by DrTuner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems Saint Greta of the Perpetual Scowl has been bery bery busy. She has been in Denver, Idaho, and Montana and is now heading for Alberta in Canada! Wow, her feet must hurt. It's a loooooong walk. Or maybe she is riding a horse....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Forethat said:

I always provide a link to my sources. I did so In this case as well.

 

More questions?

Sometimes it's just the wrong link. As in post #1776.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Forethat said:

A general advice is that you stop looking at pictures and instead analyse the data. The graph YOU refer to displays the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures, not the rate of increase (which is NOT accelerating). In kindergarten language, that means "what is the temperature". Yes, the mean temperature is increasing.

 

The graph I provided shows the annual increase.

 

The steeper the slope, the steeper the increase. From about 1975 the slope gets steeper. Again in about 2010 the slope gets steeper still. In the last 10 years, the land sea temperature index increased by 0.31. In the 10 years before that 0.22. In the ten year before that 0.16

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...