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

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Forethat said:

Rather than just quoting data sources you don't fully understand, perhaps you should make an attempt at looking at the actual data sets. I've done it for you. Here is a graph representing NASA GMT annual increase. Please tell me where the increase is accelerating? In particular, pay attention to the last two years. I wouldn't call it 'decelerate', but the rise in temperature is decreasing. This is the SAME source you quoted. Good heavens...

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

Bye for now.

 

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:

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

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Did you even look at your own graph. It doesn't have a legend, So no explanation is given for the spooky red line at the end. But the blue and green lines indicate a temperature variation of less than 0.4 degrees in 1000 years. Even I think that is very low warming. I guess when they removed the medieval warm period, the rest of the line plumped up.

Clearly we are heading for the end of life as we know it. 

 

 

Were you even slightly intellectually adventurous you could have clicked on the link where you would have found this explanation of that spooky red line (and aren't you easily frightened!):

"The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013."

If you are judging the MWP on the basis of the graph the crazy_alex cited, you might want to back away from that. Don't have time to go into it now, but let's just say not only does it stand alone, but even its creator now disavows it.

I don't know about the end of life, but given your comment, the end of foolishness  is a long way off.

 

[RideJocky]

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




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[JamesBlond]

29 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

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

I don't own a car on principle. I cut out all non-essential travel. I cut out all non-essential purchases. I don't replace electronic goods until they die. I don't iron my clothes. I don't own a dryer or a dishwasher. I use a fan instead of aircon when I am on my own. I don't leave devices running. I don't waste water. However, I have done this since before anyone ever heard of carbon footprints - it's just a matter of common sense and personal values because I don't want to become a slave to technology, consumerism, and vanity. All I need in life is my brain, a woman, and the internet (I concede the latter is worthy).

[EVENKEEL]

Imagine if the day came and giving up your cel phone was the only way to save man kind, how many would cheat if able?

[Forethat]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who needs statistical analytical tools when we have Forethat telling us what we should be seeing?

 

 

It's not me telling you, it's NASA. 

 

More questions?

[RideJocky]

More questions?

People that already know everything have no questions.

[Forethat]

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:

 

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.

 

[nausea]

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

[DrTuner]

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.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

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.

[canuckamuck]

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.

[Chomper Higgot]

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?

[Forethat]

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?

[canuckamuck]

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.

[JamesBlond]

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.

 

[canuckamuck]

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.

[DrTuner]

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.

[Hanaguma]

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....

[pkspeaker]

1st IPCC assessment report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

 

page 250 on the pdf or 202 of the actual report.. The MWP was there as much warmer and longer than the current, the Holocene maximum was also there..

[bristolboy]

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.

[bristolboy]

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

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

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.

 

What natural warming trend would that be? And what is causing it?

 

As for seeing no change in temperature? That's just flat out false. Have you heard the tundra is melting? Depending on what portion of the tundra in question, that means it's warmer there than it's been for anywhere from 11,000 to 33,000 years.

A massive study in Nature just concluded shows that for the first time in at least the last 2000 years, the present is unique in that virtually the entire surface of the planet is getting warmer at the same time. So is that natural and what went on before unnatural?

[Kelsall]

If man made global warming is real and causing the seas to rise, why did the Obamas just pay $15 Million for a doomed beachfront home?

[DrTuner]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A massive study in Nature just concluded shows that for the first time in at least the last 2000 years, the present is unique in that virtually the entire surface of the planet is getting warmer at the same time. So is that natural and what went on before unnatural?

Ok that got me worried. The only way the surface would be getting hotter beneath the antarctic ice is if the core is overheating. I guess I'll add Earth exploding to the never ending list of things that'll kill me.

[bristolboy]

19 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

The hockey stick graph scam edited out the Medieval warming period for visual effect:

 

And now for dessert.

I looked at that graph of yours and I noticed that it was at variance with virtually every other reconstruction of past temperatures. So I looked up its creator, Craig Loehl. Among other things he has contended that the oceans are actually getting cooler. Among other things, there's a massive measurement  project called Argo which has decisively refuted such nonsense.

I wanted to see where he published his "research".  It turns out it was in a journal called Energy & Environment.

 

"Energy & Environment (E&E) is an academic journal "covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use".^[1] Under its editor-in-chief from 1998 to 2017, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, it was known for easygoing peer-review and publishing climate change denial papers.^[2] "

 

Even Roger Pielke, Jr., much beloved by denialists, thinks it's a rag.

 

But it gets even better. Loehl himself has disavowed that particular graph in favor of a much reduced rise in temperature. So what kind of website would offer as evidence a graph that its creator himself has disavowed? I'm guessing you're not going to reveal that since I've noticed that denialists are very reluctant to reveal their sources. But you could surprise me of course.

 

And the medieval warm period as reflective of global climate has itself recently been debunked in a paper that appeared in Nature. Turns out the other parts of the world were colder. It was on average, a bit warmer, but nothing like the 6 or even the 3 degrees that Loehl later posited. 

 

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What natural warming trend would that be? And what is causing it?

 

As for seeing no change in temperature? That's just flat out false. Have you heard the tundra is melting? Depending on what portion of the tundra in question, that means it's warmer there than it's been for anywhere from 11,000 to 33,000 years.

A massive study in Nature just concluded shows that for the first time in at least the last 2000 years, the present is unique in that virtually the entire surface of the planet is getting warmer at the same time. So is that natural and what went on before unnatural?

The temperature has been rising since the last cooling trend ended in 1910. But the amount of CO2 we have been putting in the air has gone up 40% in the last 50 years.

We had the same pace of warming 1910 to 1940 that we had 1970 to 2000. But the CO2 was much greater in the second 30 year period. And we even had cooling and then a flat line after WW2 despite the onset of major industrialization. There is no correlation to be seen between a rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature that cannot be explained as a natural fluctuation. The CO2 increased massively while the temperature rose at the very slow pace of .08 degrees in 100 years. Not at all anomalous in the longer temperature record. The impact of CO2 is proving to be insignificant. Our climate continues to be incredibly stable.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, canuckamuck said:

The temperature has been rising since the last cooling trend ended in 1910. But the amount of CO2 we have been putting in the air has gone up 40% in the last 50 years.

We had the same pace of warming 1910 to 1940 that we had 1970 to 2000. But the CO2 was much greater in the second 30 year period. And we even had cooling and then a flat line after WW2 despite the onset of major industrialization. There is no correlation to be seen between a rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature that cannot be explained as a natural fluctuation. The CO2 increased massively while the temperature rose at the very slow pace of .08 degrees in 100 years. Not at all anomalous in the longer temperature record. The impact of CO2 is proving to be insignificant. Our climate continues to be incredibly stable.

Another unattributed graphic.

 

Here’s a clue, something written on a graphic is part of the graphic, it is not confirmation of the source.

 

So please, provide a link to where you got this graphic.

[canuckamuck]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What natural warming trend would that be? And what is causing it?

 

As for seeing no change in temperature? That's just flat out false. Have you heard the tundra is melting? Depending on what portion of the tundra in question, that means it's warmer there than it's been for anywhere from 11,000 to 33,000 years.

A massive study in Nature just concluded shows that for the first time in at least the last 2000 years, the present is unique in that virtually the entire surface of the planet is getting warmer at the same time. So is that natural and what went on before unnatural?

Warmer now than 11,000 to 33,000 years ago, could that be because those are the exact dates of the last ice age

[canuckamuck]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Another unattributed graphic.

 

Here’s a clue, something written on a graphic is part of the graphic, it is not confirmation of the source.

 

So please, provide a link to where you got this graphic.

I got it from a site that would give you cooties, so here is the same info in a slightly different format right from NASA. Link

I couldn't get the graph to link directly but you can find it on the page linked under the second drop down at the bottom.