LeeToRainesToRoach said:
The chart you published showed an upward trend, you are attempting to frame the debate around your biases. This is just more evidence you are completely inflexible.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
The chart you published showed an upward trend, you are attempting to frame the debate around your biases. This is just more evidence you are completely inflexible.
More record temperatures right across the country again today.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/15/australia-extreme-heatwave-records-broken-amid-all-time-highest-minimum-temperatures?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/15/australia-extreme-heatwave-records-broken-amid-all-time-highest-minimum-temperatures?CMP=share_btn_tw
bullus_hit said:
One more time.
"Barring the 2016 El Nino spike, global temperatures have not perceptibly increased since 2002."
Prior to the spike, there were many, many references in climate science to "the warming hiatus". Even the most fervent warmist will concede the rate of warming has slowed since 2000 compared with that in the 1990's. Many of the models based on the 1990's trend anticipated an acceleration in temperature rise, which is why they were so far wide of the mark. By clinging to this narrative of "out of control" temperature increases, they do environmental messages in general a disservice.
Tigers of Old said:
Record cold temperatures are being set constantly, too. The coldest temperature ever recorded on earth occurred in Antarctica in 2018.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:One more time.
"Barring the 2016 El Nino spike, global temperatures have not perceptibly increased since 2002."
Prior to the spike, there were many, many references in climate science to "the warming hiatus". Even the most fervent warmist will concede the rate of warming has slowed since 2000 compared with that in the 1990's. Many of the models based on the 1990's trend anticipated an acceleration in temperature rise, which is why they were so far wide of the mark. By clinging to this narrative of "out of control" temperature increases, they do environmental messages in general a disservice.
Are you for real? That is an upward trend in anyone's language. Seriously, now you're even questioning the obvious with selective use of outliers. You may not think it's a big deal but 1 degree is significant for numerous reasons.
bullus_hit said:
The trend 2002-14 was actually downward. Only in the past four years has it turned the other way.
Let's see what happens in the next four years. You should be off to a flier with a lot of experts expecting a mild El Nino in 2019.
Hmm, I know some people have trouble identifying trends.
These same people seem to have a special ability to clutch at straws too.
But, the evidence is clear:
A graph of 5 measures of global temperature.
The trend is obvious, clearly there are fluctuations which are seized upon by idiots, but, just like the so-called pause after 1997 (which the skeptics seem to be silent about now after it became obvious it was just another straw to clutch), the trend continues despite the bleating of idiots.
I have a lot of trouble understanding why some choose deliberate ignorance.
DS
These same people seem to have a special ability to clutch at straws too.
But, the evidence is clear:
A graph of 5 measures of global temperature.
The trend is obvious, clearly there are fluctuations which are seized upon by idiots, but, just like the so-called pause after 1997 (which the skeptics seem to be silent about now after it became obvious it was just another straw to clutch), the trend continues despite the bleating of idiots.
I have a lot of trouble understanding why some choose deliberate ignorance.
DS
DavidSSS said:Hmm, I know some people have trouble identifying trends.
These same people seem to have a special ability to clutch at straws too.
But, the evidence is clear:
A graph of 5 measures of global temperature.
The trend is obvious, clearly there are fluctuations which are seized upon by idiots, but, just like the so-called pause after 1997 (which the skeptics seem to be silent about now after it became obvious it was just another straw to clutch), the trend continues despite the bleating of idiots.
I have a lot of trouble understanding why some choose deliberate ignorance.
DS
Yes, that shows the temperature increase nicely... to the end of the 1990's. (Note that subsequent IPCC charts progressively erase the problematic post-1940 decline.)
Incidentally UAH stands for University of Alabama, Huntsville and is the Spencer satellite data I'm fond of quoting.
antman said:
He doesn't have a theory, a theory is a hypothesis backed up by evidence, he has a hypothesis - not only not backed up by evidence, but contradicted by evidence. Claiming it is not warming or that the warming is slowing or stalled is an outlier even amongst deniers these days.
Any logical analysis of the evidence, and any logical consideration of the cost/benefit of taking action or doing nothing leads to one conclusion: lower emissions now and do it quickly.
DS
DavidSSS said:
Now you're just regurgitating. If it were that simple to demonstrate a relationship between CO2 and temperature, beyond basic greenhouse theory, there'd be no room for conjecture.
Just think of all the typing we could've saved...
All right you lot, the gig's up. Rice and lentils all round.
Climate activists recommend meat consumption be reduced to just 14 grams per person per day (paywalled)
Sounds reasonable.
Climate activists recommend meat consumption be reduced to just 14 grams per person per day (paywalled)
Sounds reasonable.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
This is another example of why you need to steer clear of the Murdoch press.
bullus_hit said:
It's deliberately inflammatory ("A rabble of British academics"
, but these people are serious in representing to the UN that signatories to the Paris accord are obligated to follow their dietary guidelines.LeeToRainesToRoach said:It's deliberately inflammatory ("A rabble of British academics"
Assuming they are referring to these loonies?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/16/health/new-diet-to-save-lives-and-planet-health-study-intl/index.html
LeeToRainesToRoach said:It's deliberately inflammatory ("A rabble of British academics"
Did Bolt write it?
