The weather

[caorach]

No, I don’t think the weather is the same as it was, but it never has been.
Both climate and associated weather and weather phenomena are in a constant state of flux.
Always has been and always will be.

A noted meteorologist, I can't remember who now, once stated "any month that didn't break a record would be a record breaking month." That just about sums up the weather and the climate.

 

[Tim.243]

Aye, you keep chanting the great chant of truth provided to you by the prophets of doom and we'll all just sit around waiting for the great day of doom. I'm sure you are aware but the first great day of doom was to be in 1982 as predicted by the UN in 1972, there've been a lot predicted since but for some strange reason none of it has ever happened. Do you ever feel a bit let down believing in something that never delivers on it's one big prediction? I mean, they've only to get one thing right - the end of the world - but it fails to turn up every single time. Does it ever annoy you that "global warming" had to be rebranded to "climate change" because the globe didn't warm, or do you just pretend you didn't notice the rebranding or, even better from a virtue signalling perspective, do you walk around claiming that there is unprecedented warming because you heard it on the BBC? Do you feel manipulated knowing that when Boris Johnson said COP26 was the last chance to save the earth that they'd already booked hotels, private jets, hookers etc. for COP27 and COP28, or did you just chose to go on believing?

Time for a song....

 

[TringSaint]

That’s 2 questions.
Yes, the climate is normal , it may be a new normal but it’s well within parameters.
No, I don’t think the weather is the same as it was, but it never has been.
Both climate and associated weather and weather phenomena are in a constant state of flux.
Always has been and always will

To say that this is the new normal is nuts. So if the ave uk summer is 35c+ for 3 months straight then that doesn’t make it normal.
On that basis we could be at the temp of Venus and that would be ok, as it would be the new normal - impossible to sustain human life, but the new normal.

Climate change is measured against fixed points which then enables us to determine a delta from then to now. That doesn’t make the now normal, unless it is within the typical range from the base point.

 

[Franchi Matt]

Planting trees means waiting a long time until they are big enough to absorb significant CO2. NOT cutting them down is much more important.

Unfortunately there is so much money to be made in cutting down tree's, no money to be made in saving the planet - what a great species we've become.

 

[caorach]

Unfortunately there is so much money to be made in cutting down tree's, no money to be made in saving the planet - what a great species we've become.

Actually this is far from true - the likes of Greenpeace and FoE are huge multinational companies that generate true fortunes for their leaders through selling lies about saving the planet. The whole concept of "saving the planet" is actually a simple money making scam based upon a never ceasing pipeline of lies and half truths.

 

[Turnips]

Aye, you keep chanting the great chant of truth provided to you by the prophets of doom and we'll all just sit around waiting for the great day of doom. I'm sure you are aware but the first great day of doom was to be in 1982 as predicted by the UN in 1972, there've been a lot predicted since but for some strange reason none of it has ever happened. Do you ever feel a bit let down believing in something that never delivers on it's one big prediction? I mean, they've only to get one thing right - the end of the world - but it fails to turn up every single time. Does it ever annoy you that "global warming" had to be rebranded to "climate change" because the globe didn't warm, or do you just pretend you didn't notice the rebranding or, even better from a virtue signalling perspective, do you walk around claiming that there is unprecedented warming because you heard it on the BBC? Do you feel manipulated knowing that when Boris Johnson said COP26 was the last chance to save the earth that they'd already booked hotels, private jets, hookers etc. for COP27 and COP28, or did you just chose to go on believing?

Global warming and climate change are not the same, by definition. Climate change includes things like global warming, but also changing sea levels, loss of glaciers on mountains, increased polar ice melt, changes in plant flowering behaviour etc.

I'm not going to try and change your opinion or anyone else's, same as I wouldn't try and convince someone not to be Christian etc. Just remember that while you think that you're right, there are plenty of notable scientists who think you're wrong - including NASA, for example. Just because we think mankind is accelerating the planets changing climate doesn't mean we live in a mud hut, don't wash and only eat mushrooms!

 

[Stevie/P]

It’s all a Hoax

 

[Tim.243]

Global warming and climate change are not the same, by definition. Climate change includes things like global warming, but also changing sea levels, loss of glaciers on mountains, increased polar ice melt, changes in plant flowering behaviour etc.

I'm not going to try and change your opinion or anyone else's, same as I wouldn't try and convince someone not to be Christian etc. Just remember that while you think that you're right, there are plenty of notable scientists who think you're wrong - including NASA, for example. Just because we think mankind is accelerating the planets changing climate doesn't mean we live in a mud hut, don't wash and only eat mushrooms!

Reading a few of the replies some seem to be doing just that in bold

 

[Franchi Matt]

Actually this is far from true

How so? Green peace ceos aren't saving the planet because there's zero money in it....they are just running a corrupt business. Again - there is no money in saving this planet.

 

[caorach]

Global warming and climate change are not the same, by definition. Climate change includes things like global warming, but also changing sea levels, loss of glaciers on mountains, increased polar ice melt, changes in plant flowering behaviour etc.

I'm not going to try and change your opinion or anyone else's, same as I wouldn't try and convince someone not to be Christian etc. Just remember that while you think that you're right, there are plenty of notable scientists who think you're wrong - including NASA, for example. Just because we think mankind is accelerating the planets changing climate doesn't mean we live in a mud hut, don't wash and only eat mushrooms!

So what you are saying is that the doom cultists have expanded their cult to include any kind of weather or natural phenomena because all their predictions so far have failed but with weather and natural phenomena you can be sure there'll be something unusual to grab the headlines?

Also you are already chanting for the cult - there is nothing unusual about changing sea levels (since the last ice age the rate of sea level rise has formed a sort of S shaped graph and so is currently much slower than it was in relatively recent times), there is nothing unusual about polar ice melt it is just that the cult only reports that Arctic ice levels have been back to the levels they were in the middle of last century but they aren't reporting the record low temps in Antarctica or that any ice loss there is due to current wind direction - at -80 degrees the ice certainly isn't melting unless the cult have added some more novel physics to their range of nutty ideas. They also aren't reporting that Samuel Pepys recorded all the roses blooming in January in the 1600s but should they spot a daisy flowering a day before it did last year they are chanting about climate change.

You must remember that the "scientists" who provided the "evidence" for "global warming" were paid to do so by Margaret Thatcher who, with her advisor, came up with the idea as a political tool. The Tyndale Centre was to "provide evidence" it wasn't tasked with research, just providing evidence for a political tool. NASA are also a political body who employ campaigning scientists to achieve a political end, they are not an independent scientific institution. Ever wonder why, when you turn on your TV, it's a politician in a suit chanting for the cult and not a scientist?

 

[caorach]

How so? Green peace ceos aren't saving the planet because there's zero money in it....they are just running a corrupt business. Again - there is no money in saving this planet.

They assist in setting the agenda for the cult - the cult is saving the earth. I know that the fundamental physics doesn't support this and that none of the cultists are doing anything to save anything other than the cash in their pockets but there is big big money in the cult and in telling people they are saving the earth. The truth is the earth doesn't need saving for a range of reasons - for a start rich countries tend to protect their environment much better than poor ones where you might be lucky to get enough money to eat. The other reason is that the earth has been here for 4 billion years and the only thing that hasn't changed is change and so it doesn't matter what mankind does as he may, or may not, die out in a little while but that's how the earth has always worked.

So, perhaps you are correct and I should have said that you can take huge amounts of cash off the cultists for being "seen" to save the earth.

 

[Dunwaters]

To say that this is the new normal is nuts. So if the ave uk summer is 35c+ for 3 months straight then that doesn’t make it normal.
On that basis we could be at the temp of Venus and that would be ok, as it would be the new normal - impossible to sustain human life, but the new normal.

Climate change is measured against fixed points which then enables us to determine a delta from then to now. That doesn’t make the now normal, unless it is within the typical range from the base point.

On what basis are you calculating the norm?
Take your scenario, 3 months of 35 would indeed be well outside what qualifies as normal the first time it happens.
But suppose the same thing happened every year for 30 years?
It would become “ normal “.
If it was a once of event it would have a large impact on the average temperature of the year in which it occurs, but if you take that result and average it over 200 years the deviation will probably be quite small over the longer period.
No one knows how long a particular climate cycle lasts until it’s over.
Officially we are in an Inter Glacial era and will be until the next ice age dawns
That doesn’t quite suit the burning planet scenario but we’ve been inter glacial now for approximately 10,000years.
Maybe we’re just due a change?

 

[Turnips]

You must remember that the "scientists" who provided the "evidence" for "global warming" were paid to do so by Margaret Thatcher who, with her advisor, came up with the idea as a political tool. The Tyndale Centre was to "provide evidence" it wasn't tasked with research, just providing evidence for a political tool. NASA are also a political body who employ campaigning scientists to achieve a political end, they are not an independent scientific institution. Ever wonder why, when you turn on your TV, it's a politician in a suit chanting for the cult and not a scientist?

Any thoughts on why the US Government has a differing opinion to NASA about climate change?

Apart from the obvious ties to the oil industry that many of the members of the US political system have, I guess.

Also you are already chanting for the cult

I'm not chanting for anyone, happy to read any journal that I can understand, or watch videos etc. As I said before - I'm not a scientist and don't claim to be.

Also, I'm aware of what propaganda is - I'm very curious what some of your other views about world politics might be!

 

[caorach]

Also, I'm aware of what propaganda is - I'm very curious what some of your other views about world politics might be!

Ah, the old "you're not the right sort of person to be allowed a view because almost everything you think will be wrong" gambit. The cult played the same game with the leading atmospheric physicists as well - Lindzen was even a leading author of some of the UN/IPCC reports until it was decided that his reporting of the science didn't fit the agenda and so it was decided he had the wrong views about physical reality to be allowed a voice.

 

[Turnips]

Ah, the old "you're not the right sort of person to be allowed a view because almost everything you think will be wrong" gambit. The cult played the same game with the leading atmospheric physicists as well - Lindzen was even a leading author of some of the UN/IPCC reports until it was decided that his reporting of the science didn't fit the agenda and so it was decided he had the wrong views about physical reality to be allowed a voice.

If you think I was having a dig at you then you are wrong. Genuinely curious.

 

[caorach]

If you think I was having a dig at you then you are wrong. Genuinely curious.

And in what way does what I think about, say, the situation in Ukraine change the fact that the whole global warming cult is based upon a physical impossibility?

An associate of mine had a PhD in planetary atmospheric physics and his speciality was the (then) planet Pluto. He published a paper (this was probably 30 years ago now) detailing the temperature changes on the planet and suggesting that sun may have been the source of the rising temperature trend. He had no idea this would be controversial as he was merely stating physical reality - he measured things, wrote them down, and published them. It didn't occur to him that the cultists would come for him as he had become the "wrong sort of person." It seems that they extrapolated his findings to earth, which might also be heated by the sun I guess, and decided that this didn't fit with their agenda. They attacked his kids going to school, burnt his car out on his driveway, and he is now living under and assumed name lest they come for him again. If you think the climate cult and the supporting "evidence" just happened you'd be very wrong.

My world politics view is that this should be allowed to happen and we shouldn't be seeing the likes of Boris Johnston standing up there supporting it.

 

[Turnips]

And in what way does what I think about, say, the situation in Ukraine change the fact that the whole global warming cult is based upon a physical impossibility?

It doesn't, except that you are probably open to what would be considered by mainstream media as left-field views, and think about things critically - which is why I asked.

Like I said, I'm not really interested in arguments or slanging matches but I do like to hear other peoples opinions about things.

 

[LuckyEddie]

From a simple bloke that hates being bombarded with issues.

The climate has been changing for millennia.
Yes we probably have had an influence on the change more than any other living organism.
It may be that Mother Nature has had enough and will call time on our shenanigans and decide to have a cull as she has done with other species.

Unfortunately humans have been programmed to live for the now or possibly the next generation since at least the turn of the 20th century if not earlier.
We want things to stay the same or better for us than before.
As one example; whereas my cohorts and I either walked or cycled to school, with those in outlying areas being bused in. Those of a younger generation have been primarily chauffeured, irrespective of the distance.

The simple fact is that there are too many people alive and using up resources at an alarming rate whether it be oil, gas, water or minerals.

With this in mind, how is it possible to recapture the gene and to what point in time do we go back to?
Bearing in mind the population of the world at that time - to me that is incompatible.

 

[TringSaint]

On what basis are you calculating the norm?
Take your scenario, 3 months of 35 would indeed be well outside what qualifies as normal the first time it happens.
But suppose the same thing happened every year for 30 years?
It would become “ normal “.
If it was a once of event it would have a large impact on the average temperature of the year in which it occurs, but if you take that result and average it over 200 years the deviation will probably be quite small over the longer period.
No one knows how long a particular climate cycle lasts until it’s over.
Officially we are in an Inter Glacial era and will be until the next ice age dawns
That doesn’t quite suit the burning planet scenario but we’ve been inter glacial now for approximately 10,000years.
Maybe we’re just due a change?

I would say the normal would be a base point somewhere in the past before we noticed the extreme changes in climate, say 1950?

As for the interglacial period, yes, that is the common theory but the science is showing that the mass release of co2 is changing that cycle and rather than moving into a cooling period, we are moving into a warming period. So bucking the trend over the past few hundred thousand years.

Ultimately we will only know if these hypotheses are correct in the future ( I’m talking possibly millennia not decades).

 

[Dunwaters]

I would say the normal would be a base point somewhere in the past before we noticed the extreme changes in climate, say 1950?

As for the interglacial period, yes, that is the common theory but the science is showing that the mass release of co2 is changing that cycle and rather than moving into a cooling period, we are moving into a warming period. So bucking the trend over the past few hundred thousand years.

Ultimately we will only know if these hypotheses are correct in the future ( I’m talking possibly millennia not decades).

How do you know that the current changes are extreme?
You need to define your base line parameters.
You cannot use simple temperature statistics gathered over less than a hundred years to draw meaningful conclusions over climate change influences over millennia.
There are just too many other variables
If you are going to apply very limited data to global events on a scale that’s measured in tens of thousands of years, then you really need to define your parameters.
This the climate change lobby resolutely refuses to do.
We’ve only been measuring and plotting climate for a couple of decades and most of the planet is not measured at all.
Yet current levels of accuracy in spot measurements and values are being extrapolated to produce global trend maps which just cannot be verified.
As for Interglacial period being a theory, it has a sound basis in observed facts, we know that the ice ages occurred and we know when they started and when they ended, so not so much a theory as an accepted scientific fact.
As is the fact that the global climate has been warmer too.
And life on earth didn't end, it adapted, to even to the most extreme events.
Where life couldn’t adapt and survive it lurked where it could, bided its time and re-colonised.