Greta Thunberg

[I'm With Stupid]

Didn't say the correlation btw greenhouse gases and global warming was flimsy. I said the co-relation btw Co2 emission levels and the corresponding warning was flimsy. Big difference.

What would you expect to see that you don't currently see in the evidence?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I think you should sleep easy. There's no appetite amonst any of the nuclear powers for any sort of nuclear conflict, since they know full well what the terrible consequences would be. Nor for any conflict between each other, because of the nuclear possibilities. And I might add, little or no appetite for sending in troops on the ground either.

I think the biggest threat right now is from terrorists.

While you are certainly correct wrt nuclear weapons and boots on the ground, but that’s not the nature of the next war; which will be a covert technological war...AND IS ONGOING AS I TYPE!

 

[SWP's back]

20 years. My error. I meant to type 20 years. Since 2000.

citation needed

Didn't say the correlation btw greenhouse gases and global warming was flimsy. I said the co-relation btw Co2 emission levels and the corresponding warning was flimsy. Big difference.

Good job we aren’t just talking about man made CO2 then.

Not a great analogy as there aren't conflating information regarding speeding on the wrong side

What conflating information?

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

20 years. My error. I meant to type 20 years. Since 2000.

I note you ignored my stat (same source as @SWP's back) that based on your typo of 30yrs + preceding 100 yrs the factor had changed almost FIVE fold ...

What stats are you using for this because using NASA data here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg, I am seeing the 5 year smoothing figure rise at 0.0193° per year over the last 29 years (taking 1990 @ 0.34 and 2019 @ 0.92) whereas 1880 (-0.1) to 1990 is a rise of 0.004° per year. That's almost 5 times more for the last 29yrs than the previous 110yrs.

Using your correction that factor is now just short of 5.75 fold.

 

[Damocles]

That's part of my concern, mate. Fundamentalists could kick-start a world war.

I've believed in the power of Mutually Assured Destruction all of my life, even in the cold war. But I believed in a lot of things which have proved not to be permanent, and I've lost faith in the over-riding decency of humanity. Trump and Brexit have destroyed it.

Mutually Assured Destruction has never been a real thing. The world became peaceful because our economies became co-dependent on each other so very few major economies could even afford to declare war on each other. This is still the case.

Leaving a trading union and electing a man who brands himself as a maverick everyman in a world sick of pretentious Ken dolls isn't changing any of this.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Mutually Assured Destruction has never been a real thing. The world became peaceful because our economies became co-dependent on each other so very few major economies could even afford to declare war on each other. This is still the case.

Leaving a trading union and electing a man who brands himself as a maverick everyman in a world sick of pretentious Ken dolls isn't changing any of this.

It was a real thing during the Cuban Missile Crisis, mate.

 

[inbetween]

Mutually Assured Destruction has never been a real thing. The world became peaceful because our economies became co-dependent on each other so very few major economies could even afford to declare war on each other. This is still the case.

Leaving a trading union and electing a man who brands himself as a maverick everyman in a world sick of pretentious Ken dolls isn't changing any of this.

You have to look at why Russia is feared and why is Russia seen as on parity with China and the US as a superpower which influence policy in the rest of the world?

Canada, Italy and Brazil are far larger economically but why are either not regarded as influential superpowers?

The European economy is 18x larger than the Russian economy but why is Russia able to pressure Europe and essentially for example with Crimea etc hold Europe to ransom?

Nuclear weapons.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Citation needed as I think you made that up.

This is from NASA:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
Doesn’t look like it’s slowing down in the last 30 years.

Have NASA been frigging (er <cough>, "adjusting") the data again?

Below is typical of the graphs coming out around 2010 ish, when everyone noticed that global warming had slowed or even stopped (or at least paused) in 1998. This was around the time they started calling it "climate change" not "global warming". It was a major embarrassment and inconvenience, since whether global warming was going to resume or not, what the data showed at the very least was that all the models were wrong. None of them predicted this. I've picked just three. There are dozens of similar graphs, none of which look like the NASA one above.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167492781050008X
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/

Now it seems NASA have gone back to "adjust" the data, presumably for all very good understandable reasons based on differences in measurement techniques etc etc etc. And to make it fit.

 

[aguero93:20]

You have to look at why Russia is feared and why is Russia seen as on parity with China and the US as a superpower which influence policy in the rest of the world?

Canada, Italy and Brazil are far larger economically but why are either not regarded as influential superpowers?

The European economy is 18x larger than the Russian economy but why is Russia able to pressure Europe and essentially for example with Crimea etc hold Europe to ransom?

Nuclear weapons.

Gas too.

 

[SWP's back]

Have NASA been frigging (er <cough>, "adjusting") the data again?

Below is typical of the graphs coming out around 2010 ish, when everyone noticed that global warming had slowed or even stopped (or at least paused) in 1998. This was around the time they started calling it "climate change" not "global warming". It was a major embarrassment and inconvenience, since whether global warming was going to resume or not, what the data showed at the very least was that all the models were wrong. None of them predicted this. I've picked just three. There are dozens of similar graphs, none of which look like the NASA one above.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167492781050008X
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/

Now it seems NASA have gone back to "adjust" the data, presumably for all very good understandable reasons based on differences in measurement techniques etc etc etc. And to make it fit.

Why does all your data (which I’ve not actually checked for accuracy yet but will when I’m bored at work tomorrow) stop in 2010?

Do you not believe warning continue past 2000?