MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
Noticed how recently there has been a spate of climate alarmism?

1) We had '11,000 scientists declaring a climate emergency!' (infact they were mostly students, teachers, eco types and an assortment of nobodies).

2) Then we have the Greta phenomenon. Where is the funding coming from and why now, to launch her at the world?

3) Extinction Rebellion clogging up the streets of London (didnt make such an impact abroad), started and run by an LSD taking geneticist, suddenly receiving funding allowing them to pay their members to go and protest.

4) A bunch of people, such as Attenborough, proclaiming the planet and human society has 10 years left unless we save it.



After years of relative inactivity, we have this sudden push. Why? Would it be to do with the fact the planet is not only no longer warming, but showing signs of imminent cooling?

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/11...year-in-a-row/
"Western Hudson Bay freeze-up earlier than average for 1980s for the third year in a row"

We had snow in the Devon the last two winters, this is very very rare.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...w-sun-activity "NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity"

China scientists warn of global cooling trick up nature’s sleeve

Are we seeing a desperate push to get climate change into statute before it becomes self evident it was all a lie?
Last edited by MonkeyChunks; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
After years of relative inactivity, we have this sudden push. Why? Would it be to do with the fact the planet is not only no longer warming, but showing signs of imminent cooling?

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/11...year-in-a-row/
"Western Hudson Bay freeze-up earlier than average for 1980s for the third year in a row"

We had snow in the Devon the last two winters, this is very very rare.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...w-sun-activity "NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity"
Two places being colder than usual does not mean that the planet, as a whole, is no longer warming (let alone cooling). I trust you understand how averages work?

As for solar activity, this is well known to fluctuate over a period of about 11 years. The cycle then repeats, as it has done so for well over a century.
5
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Two places being colder than usual does not mean that the planet, as a whole, is no longer warming (let alone cooling). I trust you understand how averages work?
Not to mention that global warming disrupts the jet stream, resulting in more extreme weather events. As always, denialists don't know **** about the subject
3
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Two places being colder than usual does not mean that the planet, as a whole, is no longer warming (let alone cooling). I trust you understand how averages work?
I didnt say it was cooling. Ever heard of a leading indicator?

It certainly hasnt warmed: 1990 - 2019 UAH temperature If you take out the 1991 mount pinatubo cooling and the big 1998 and 2016/17 el ninos it is flat.

(Original post by SHallowvale)
As for solar activity, this is well known to fluctuate over a period of about 11 years. The cycle then repeats, as it has done so for well over a century.
That is one cycle, there are longer ones too.
Last edited by MonkeyChunks; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
We must be just imagining the forest fires, the massive storms, the rains, the expansion of deserts, the destruction of species.
8
reply
Kitten in boots
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
We have no doubt that you are a prominent internet intellectual.

However, If you believe the current consensus on anthropogenic climate change is incorrect, you need to publish your research in a peer reviewed journal. I have no doubt Nature or Science would love to hear from you.

Until then, people can be forgiven for dismissing your claims.
12
reply
_Wellies_
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Kitten in boots)
We have no doubt that you are a prominent internet intellectual.
Brutal. :rofl:
7
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
We must be just imagining the forest fires, the massive storms, the rains, the expansion of deserts, the destruction of species.
No, you arent imagining them, you are mistakenly attributing them to global warming. No serious scientist does, so why do you?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Kitten in boots)
We have no doubt that you are a prominent internet intellectual.

However, If you believe the current consensus on anthropogenic climate change is incorrect, you need to publish your research in a peer reviewed journal. I have no doubt Nature or Science would love to hear from you.

Until then, people can be forgiven for dismissing your claims.
Oh, didnt you notice the links to two peer reviewed and published papers on up coming global cooling?
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
No, you arent imagining them, you are mistakenly attributing them to global warming. No serious scientist does, so why do you?
97% do actually, but ok boomer
1
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
97% do actually, but ok boomer
No, they dont. The poll by Doran Zimmerman, that gave rise to the 97% figure, polled 10,000 mostly US scientists, with two questions:

1) Has it warmed over the last century
2) Has man played a significant part

4,000 responded, many of them complaining that the word 'significant' has many meanings and is undefined in the context of the question. (A significant part of a currys taste is cumin. Doesnt mean it is all cumin, or mostly cumin for example)

The results were about 50/50, so they whittled the responses down to those from just 79 scientists, those who published actively in climate science papers, 77 of whom answered yes to both questions. (I would answer yes too by the way).

At no time were they asked how much man contributed, and whether the effect would be more severe weather.

So no, 97% of scientists never said CO2 causes severe weather.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
No, they dont. The poll by Doran Zimmerman, that gave rise to the 97% figure, polled 10,000 mostly US scientists, with two questions:

1) Has it warmed over the last century
2) Has man played a significant part

4,000 responded, many of them complaining that the word 'significant' has many meanings and is undefined in the context of the question. (A significant part of a currys taste is cumin. Doesnt mean it is all cumin, or mostly cumin for example)

The results were about 50/50, so they whittled the responses down to those from just 79 scientists, those who published actively in climate science papers, 77 of whom answered yes to both questions. (I would answer yes too by the way).

At no time were they asked how much man contributed, and whether the effect would be more severe weather.

So no, 97% of scientists never said CO2 causes severe weather.
The scientific consensus on climate change is clear, it is happening, it is anthropogenic and it is causing extreme weather conditions. The only people who still deny it are the supremely uneducated, the psuedo-intellectuals who **** themselves off about being devils advocate or corporate shills who'd sooner kill the planet than be merely rich than filthy rich. Pick which one you are.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
The scientific consensus on climate change is clear, it is happening, it is anthropogenic and it is causing extreme weather conditions. The only people who still deny it are the supremely uneducated, the psuedo-intellectuals who **** themselves off about being devils advocate or corporate shills who'd sooner kill the planet than be merely rich than filthy rich. Pick which one you are.
No, the consensus is it is happening, and man has played a significant role, and that is it, as I just explained it to you.

There has been no poll of scientists about the impact of that warming on weather, and there is no consensus on it at all. In fact the IPCC, the global body tasked with examining climate change explicitly states there us no connection between CO2 and severe weather.

And if you look at actual data there is no increase in storms, hurricanes, rainfall, droughts, wild fires or heatwaves anyway.

What CO2 does do is cause mild warming and a large increase in plant growth. And this is what the data shows.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
I didnt say it was cooling. Ever heard of a leading indicator?

It certainly hasnt warmed: 1990 - 2019 UAH temperature If you take out the 1991 mount pinatubo cooling and the big 1998 and 2016/17 el ninos it is flat.

That is one cycle, there are longer ones too.
You suggested that the Earth could be showing signs of imminent cooling, to which you provided two specific examples. I've pointed out that these examples are not only insufficient but also irrelevant. Two local examples of temperature are not indicative of the entire planet's temperature change (or possible lack thereof).

The graph you've linked actually shows some warming, even though the warming is minimal. If you increase the scale and look over the last 100 years (or as far back as the data goes), the warming is more obvious. The same conclusion can be reached even when comparing different data sets:

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4

What longer cycle are you referring to? The article you gave in your original post referred to the solar minimum and what NASA has said about it. NASA, themselves, are referring to the 11 year cycle as I said.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
No, the consensus is it is happening, and man has played a significant role, and that is it, as I just explained it to you.

There has been no poll of scientists about the impact of that warming on weather, and there is no consensus on it at all. In fact the IPCC, the global body tasked with examining climate change explicitly states there us no connection between CO2 and severe weather.

And if you look at actual data there is no increase in storms, hurricanes, rainfall, droughts, wild fires or heatwaves anyway.

What CO2 does do is cause mild warming and a large increase in plant growth. And this is what the data shows.
Bull**** - The IPCC are quite clear that CO2 and other greenhouse gases need to be massively reduced in emissions, and ideally removed from the atmosphere if possible, to avoid temperature rises above 2 degrees celsius, which would be disastrous. Everything you're posting is known to be false, so I've got to ask - are you just completely illiterate around science or are you actively lying?
Last edited by Stiff Little Fingers; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
No, you arent imagining them, you are mistakenly attributing them to global warming. No serious scientist does, so why do you?
"These changes don't automatically generate extreme weather events but they change the odds that such events will take place. It is equivalent to the loading of dice, leading to one side being heavier, so that a certain outcome becomes more likely. In the context of global warming, this means that rising temperatures increase the odds of extreme events occurring."

That's what the sceptical scientists say.
https://skepticalscience.com/extreme...al-warming.htm
0
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
No, the consensus is it is happening, and man has played a significant role, and that is it, as I just explained it to you.

There has been no poll of scientists about the impact of that warming on weather, and there is no consensus on it at all. In fact the IPCC, the global body tasked with examining climate change explicitly states there us no connection between CO2 and severe weather.

And if you look at actual data there is no increase in storms, hurricanes, rainfall, droughts, wild fires or heatwaves anyway.

What CO2 does do is cause mild warming and a large increase in plant growth. And this is what the data shows.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nefit-plants1/

So no not really. It benefits them up to a point and ignores the big picture.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Kitten in boots)
We have no doubt that you are a prominent internet intellectual.
Had to laugh at this.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You suggested that the Earth could be showing signs of imminent cooling, to which you provided two specific examples. I've pointed out that these examples are not only insufficient but also irrelevant. Two local examples of temperature are not indicative of the entire planet's temperature change (or possible lack thereof).

The graph you've linked actually shows some warming, even though the warming is minimal. If you increase the scale and look over the last 100 years (or as far back as the data goes), the warming is more obvious. The same conclusion can be reached even when comparing different data sets:

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4

What longer cycle are you referring to? The article you gave in your original post referred to the solar minimum and what NASA has said about it. NASA, themselves, are referring to the 11 year cycle as I said.
Yes, it has warmed, but since the mid 90s the trend isnt significantly different to zero looking at UAH and HADCRUT data.

Re solar cycles, here is a discussion of a 350 year cycle.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Bull**** - The IPCC are quite clear that CO2 and other greenhouse gases need to be massively reduced in emissions, and ideally removed from the atmosphere if possible, to avoid temperature rises above 2 degrees celsius, which would be disastrous. Everything you're posting is known to be false, so I've got to ask - are you just completely illiterate around science or are you actively lying?
Who said the IPCC didnt say CO2 needs reducing?

I said the IPCC has stated there is no correlation with more severe weather. Here is a link for you: https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/u...gn=thedcenergy “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.” IPCC admits there is “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale" The IPCC also noted there is “low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods.”

Now dont be silly and pay attention to the experts.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (176)
19.09%
Labour (472)
51.19%
Liberal Democrats (122)
13.23%
Green Party (54)
5.86%
Brexit Party (13)
1.41%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (4)
0.43%
SNP (15)
1.63%
Plaid Cymru (4)
0.43%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (6)
0.65%
SDLP (1)
0.11%
Ulster Unionist (4)
0.43%
UKIP (10)
1.08%
Other (8)
0.87%
None (33)
3.58%

Watched Threads

View All