MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by AJ126y)
Did you miss the bit right after when it said it has unequivocally ended?
By a very big and long el nino? No, it hasnt ended. You cant end a pause in long term global warming by a temporal event.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
And the working class pay the bill..... Disgusting isnt it.
That's exactly where the 20% surcharge on our bill goes, the pockets of the people who own the land where we plant a few turbines to make it look like we're saving the planet.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by AJ126y)
Its a way of dismissing your argument because its so stupid that it's just not worth engaging with it. A boomer is a member of the older generation. A generation known for espousing climate denialism contrary to all the established facts.
Who is denying the climate is changing or that CO2 is a GH gas? Not me. I am just saying, as the facts clearly show, that CO2 isnt causing much warming, which is obvious when you look at how much we have had for the 45% more we added.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by JakeTSR)
If you weren’t such a boomer you might know.
You cant even get that right can you. No, I am not a post war baby boomer.

I look at the cold hard facts and ignore the BS. Perhaps you should.
0
reply
JakeTSR
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
You cant even get that right can you. No, I am not a post war baby boomer.

I look at the cold hard facts and ignore the BS. Perhaps you should.
Lol when someone says ok boomer they don’t mean the literal baby boomer era. It’s referring to a characteristic displayed stereotypically by baby boomers. Maybe the science community would love to hear your cold hard facts, I’m sure they’ll be delighted to indulge your delusions. Hell, they might change their beliefs and even start pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, cause why not?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by JakeTSR)
Lol when someone says ok boomer they don’t mean the literal baby boomer era. It’s referring to a characteristic displayed stereotypically by baby boomers. Maybe the science community would love to hear your cold hard facts, I’m sure they’ll be delighted to indulge your delusions. Hell, they might change their beliefs and even start pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, cause why not?
CO2 isnt a pollutant. It is a crucial gas that is the foundation of life on earth. That is what scientists know. Carbon cycle Clearly it is you at odds with science.
0
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
CO2 isnt a pollutant. It is a crucial gas that is the foundation of life on earth. That is what scientists know. Carbon cycle Clearly it is you at odds with science.
Yes and without it and the other greenhouse gases the earth would be below freezing. This is well known science. Blackbody radiation is not enough alone to explain why the earth is so warm. The earth already has a natural greenhouse effect.Logic dictates that if you add more gases this will increase the effect.
Last edited by username4977980; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by AJ126y)
Yes and without it and the other greenhouse gases the earth would be below freezing. This is well known science. Blackbody radiation is not enough alone to explain why the earth is so warm. The earth already has a natural greenhouse effect.Logic dictates that if you add more gases this will increase the effect.
Who is saying there is no GH effect and CO2 is not causing warming? Not me.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
Totally irrelevant. Stick to the evidence you gave me, don't try to justify it with something totally different. The data you gave does not show evidence that temperature has remained the same since the 90s. I ran a statistical analysis on this and, even after removing the periods that are inconvinent for you, found an undoubtably significant trend.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Totally irrelevant. Stick to the evidence you gave me, don't try to justify it with something totally different. The data you gave does not show evidence that temperature has remained the same since the 90s. I ran a statistical analysis on this and, even after removing the periods that are inconvinent for you, found an undoubtably significant trend.
Of course it is relevant. I called that period 'flat' the IPCC call it a period of 'no statically significant warming'. Oh, and we are using the same data, HADCRUT data.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Of course it is relevant. I called that period 'flat' the IPCC call it a period of 'no statically significant warming'. Oh, and we are using the same data, HADCRUT data.
I see. In that case, the conclusion reached above is inaccurate since it only goes up to 2012. We now have an additional 6-7 years to work with. My analysis included the years 2013-present. The article you've linked also contains two amendments, one in 2015 and one in 2018, both stating that warming has since resumed. This agrees with my own analysis.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I see. In that case, the conclusion reached above is inaccurate since it only goes up to 2012. We now have an additional 6-7 years to work with. My analysis included the years 2013-present. The article you've linked also contains two amendments, one in 2015 and one in 2018, both stating that warming has since resumed. This agrees with my own analysis.
Because of a long and big el nino in 2016 and 2017. Which you can see has already passed.

Like I said, you cant use outliers from volcanic cooling or el nino warming to get a trend, to do so is blatantly dishonest.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
Name:  download.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  19.0 KB
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by z-hog)
Name:  download.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  19.0 KB
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Because of a long and big el nino in 2016 and 2017. Which you can see has already passed.

Like I said, you cant use outliers from volcanic cooling or el nino warming to get a trend, to do so is blatantly dishonest.
I removed both volcanic cooling and el nino warming from the data, as you said. The trend was still significant.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I removed both volcanic cooling and el nino warming from the data, as you said. The trend was still significant.
Can you post your data and methods here and we will see.
0
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Who is saying there is no GH effect and CO2 is not causing warming? Not me.
So we can just add as much CO2 as we like? Forever? You've admitted there is in fact a greenhouse effect and that it causes warming. Logic dictates that the more CO2 you add the stronger this effect will be. That's basic logic. Also 1 degree in 100 years globally is not mild warming. That's actually quite a lot. The last ice age had ice extending across North America and it was only 5 degrees cooler. And before you go on about the mini-ice age, that was mainly in Europe. Temperatures haven't been this high globally for 2000 years.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Can you post your data and methods here and we will see.
Take the original data as you provided. Remove data from the years 1991, 1998, 2016 and 2017. Fit the remaining data to a linear model with an intercept and slope parameter (this can very easily be done in R). Check the summary statistics to see if the slope parameter is significant, which it is.

You could also compare this model with a null model (which has an intercept but no slope parameter) using an ANOVA table/F-test and see if the different in RSS is significant, which it is.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by AJ126y)
So we can just add as much CO2 as we like? Forever? You've admitted there is in fact a greenhouse effect and that it causes warming. Logic dictates that the more CO2 you add the stronger this effect will be. That's basic logic. Also 1 degree in 100 years globally is not mild warming. That's actually quite a lot. The last ice age had ice extending across North America and it was only 5 degrees cooler. And before you go on about the mini-ice age, that was mainly in Europe. Temperatures haven't been this high globally for 2000 years.
Stop demonising CO2! Didn't you know that CO2 is the foundation of all life on Earth?

It's exactly like water; fundemental for all life on Earth. So just shut up and let me flood your house. :rolleyes:
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by AJ126y)
So we can just add as much CO2 as we like? Forever?
Well, we dont have enough fossil fuels, but if we did we should probably avoid going over 10% as it risks becoming toxic.

(Original post by AJ126y)
You've admitted there is in fact a greenhouse effect and that it causes warming
.

No, I stated CO2 is a GH gas and causes warming.

(Original post by AJ126y)
Logic dictates that the more CO2 you add the stronger this effect will be.
Ah, no, this isnt true. Like painting a dark wall white, after two or three coats, it doesnt get any whiter. The effect of CO2 is inverse log, the more you add the less and less warming you get. It becomes saturated, and it in fact already is at its principle absorption band of 15 or so microns (the edges of this are expanding a bit. Take a look at this MODTRAN graph for two concentrations of CO2, you can clearly see the difference is in the shoulders of the absorption window 300 ppm to 600 ppm)


(Original post by AJ126y)
That's basic logic. Also 1 degree in 100 years globally is not mild warming
.
Well, using official IPCC data (from the Hadley center) it is nearer 0.7C HADCRUT 4, 1870 - today


(Original post by AJ126y)
That's actually quite a lot. The last ice age had ice extending across North America and it was only 5 degrees cooler. And before you go on about the mini-ice age, that was mainly in Europe. Temperatures haven't been this high globally for 2000 years.

Well, that is questionable, there is evidence for the medieval warm period in many parts of the world, and as for rate of change, well that too isnt unusual either, in fact the HADCRUT data above shows a period prior to 1940 where the rate and extent is no different to the post 1965 warming, which is thought to be mostly CO2 driven. In fact Phil Jones, the creator of HADCRUT data stated that there are a number of these warming periods, which are stastically little different from each other, going back over the last 150 or so years.

But I take your point, an ice age wasnt that much colder, and we had 2 mile thick ice sheets over London and New York.

Since it has been getting colder over the last 5000 years, Holocene temperature dont yo think a good bit of warming is a good idea? It strikes me I would rather be 2 C warmer than risk hitting a tipping point into a new ice age.
Last edited by MonkeyChunks; 2 weeks ago
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 (100)
18.69%
Labour (273)
51.03%
Liberal Democrats (68)
12.71%
Green Party (30)
5.61%
Brexit Party (7)
1.31%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (3)
0.56%
SNP (11)
2.06%
Plaid Cymru (3)
0.56%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (6)
1.12%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (3)
0.56%
UKIP (6)
1.12%
Other (4)
0.75%
None (21)
3.93%

Watched Threads

View All
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