Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[IFocus]

There is plenty of criticism of Indonesia for this.

Indo has been burning this year for awhile winds must be missing Singapore that's where most the noise comes from about the fires...........ironically its Singapore money that's causing much of the deforestation.

 

[basilio]

Scientists are now making clear what is happening all around the world as a result human created global warming.
Scary stuff..
No Climate Event in 2,000 Years Compares to What’s Happening Now
While parts of the world have warmed or cooled in the past, modern climate change is happening just about everywhere at the same time.

....Absolutely nothing resembling modern-day global warming has happened on Earth for at least the past 2,000 years, a new study published today in Nature confirms. Since the birth of Jesus Christ, the climate has sometimes naturally changed—some parts of the world have briefly cooled, and some have briefly warmed—but it has never changed as it’s changing now. Never once until the Industrial Revolution did temperatures surge in the same direction everywhere at the same time. They’re doing so now, the study finds.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/why-little-ice-age-doesnt-matter/594517/

 

[explod]

Hit the veggie path Bas and if everyone planted one tree per week for 3 years and we turn off all the ignition switches we may save our world.

Otherwise, another scotch and watch the party.

 

[rederob]

Hurrumph

Might help if you actually checked the data instead of continuing to post your usual rubbish.

 

[explod]

Might help if you actually checked the data instead of continuing to post your usual rubbish.

I'm thinking he shoes horses for his local coal mine.

Many love these old holes.

Will be used for water storage soon IMHO

Whoops, if there is any more rain.

 

[rederob]

I'm thinking he shoes horses for his local coal mine.
Many love these old holes.
Will be used for water storage soon IMHO
Whoops, if there is any more rain.

Lots of info was available to the shoddy poster, but he chose the wrong horse and shot himself in the foot.
WRT to an earlier question about why it's relevant, I thought the answer was obvious. However, the very simple response is that if fewer trees are available to the planet's lungs each year to "absorb" CO2 , then stopping the warming trend gets more and more difficult.

 

[wayneL]

Data rules boyz.

Adjustments are for pussies. ;-)

 

[rederob]

Data rules boyz.
Adjustments are for pussies. ;-)

Again shows how little you understand.
You got the donkey vote on forest fires because you did not check your data sources.
With respect to climate, ALL TEMPERATURE DATA IS "ADJUSTED."
There is no such thing as a "global temperature" unless you use a methodology which takes a whole lot of data and "process" it to reach that figure.
The least reliable of all temperature data are from satellites as the processes of adjustment are mind boggling. Furthermore, all these data are re-adjusted as better understandings of the technology and calibration processes occur.

 

[explod]

Data rules boyz.

Adjustments are for pussies. ;-)

What Data so that one can decipher what you are getting at.

If you have lived close to the open environment one does not need to refer to data. Recently visited the old farm where I grew up in western Victoria and one does not need data.

Are you actually shoeing those horses down in the pit. Probably a good place to live soon too.

 

[wayneL]

Here ya go Lads

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...world-is-wrong/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[wayneL]

Again shows how little you understand.
You got the donkey vote on forest fires because you did not check your data sources.
With respect to climate, ALL TEMPERATURE DATA IS "ADJUSTED."
There is no such thing as a "global temperature" unless you use a methodology which takes a whole lot of data and "process" it to reach that figure.
The least reliable of all temperature data are from satellites as the processes of adjustment are mind boggling. Furthermore, all these data are re-adjusted as better understandings of the technology and calibration processes occur.

Thanks, yes, like the BEST re-re-re-re-adjustment. Interesting interpretation of the process though.

 

[explod]

Here ya go Lads

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...world-is-wrong/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Forbes Wayne, you have to be joking. You need to get out in the real world and talk to farmers and those being effected.

"
A factual search reveals that Forbes has produced a misleading claim according to an IFCN fact checker. Although Forbes is usually evidence based when it comes to science, they do not always support the consensus when it comes to climate change. For example, they have employed James Taylor as a columnist who writes anti-climate science propaganda and has connections to the questionable Heartland Institute and Exxon-Mobil. They have also published articles by Roy Spencer, who has a long track record of climate change denial. Spencer has also been a speaker for the Heartland Institute and has connections to the fossil fuel industry. Lastly, Forbes has published several articles that are rated Very Low for Science Credibility by IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback. They have also failed a fact check by IFCN fact checker Check Your Fact.

Overall, we rate Forbes Right-Center biased based on story selection that tends to favor the right and the political affiliation of its ownership. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading or false stories related to climate science. (7/14/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 8/15/2019)

Source: http://www.forbes.com/

Terms and Conditions
Fair Use Policy


"

 

[wayneL]

Of course you'dtry to smear it Plod.

That's what you lot do.

How about debating the points therein?

 

[wayneL]

Another one for you to smear Plod:

https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/24/rain-forest-fires-are-not-climate/

 

[wayneL]

Whoda thunk it? Electric vehicles destroy the planet!

https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/na...2d5a81324971fa96547?__twitter_impression=true

 

[wayneL]

 

[rederob]

How about debating the points therein?

Another one for you to smear Plod:
https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/24/rain-forest-fires-are-not-climate/

Do you want to be living proof of how ignorant people can be? Despite there being abundant science available, you choose to link to a continuous stream of garbage.
You then challenge others to debate you...on what exactly?
All these years later and the science gets more and more robust. And still there are those like you who cannot understand climate science and read from and repeatedly link to non-science, for a purpose best known to yourself.
Why not prove to us that you actually know something about this topic for a change if, of course, you have worked out what it's supposed to be about.

 

[bellenuit]

Whoda thunk it? Electric vehicles destroy the planet!

https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/na...2d5a81324971fa96547?__twitter_impression=true

As a regular The Australian reader, I thought the article was pathetic, particularly they way the promoted it on twitter. One Twitter heading was something like “electric cards emit more CO2 than petrol in the Eastern States”. They actually used the word emit.

The issue is not the car, but the energy source. They could equally have ran a headline saying The Melbourne Age is the cause of more CO2 emissions than The West Australian. It probably is true for the very same reason, but misleading and unprofessional.

 

[moXJO]

Is this actually true?

 

[wayneL]

Do you want to be living proof of how ignorant people can be? Despite there being abundant science available, you choose to link to a continuous stream of garbage.
You then challenge others to debate you...on what exactly?
All these years later and the science gets more and more robust. And still there are those like you who cannot understand climate science and read from and repeatedly link to non-science, for a purpose best known to yourself.
Why not prove to us that you actually know something about this topic for a change if, of course, you have worked out what it's supposed to be about.

Lomborg, Curry, Pielke, Happer etc are not non-science Robee. There is plenty of science which brings differing viewpoints on climate change to the table. Robust science is about discovery, not excluding all that does not fit your political agenda... or Apocalypse fantasy or whatever the hell it is that makes you guys want to believe the Earth is ending in 12 years.

Fact is, I haven't really got time or the patience for debate with extremists, but I don't mind posting some relevant links from time to time when I feel like it. I read enough to satisfy myself what the problem is, and isn't. And I do find y'alls responses interesting too, especially the constant smear and ad hominem.