Global Heat Wave: Is This The New Climate Change Normal?:

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
5,738
Thats what you said, the last time I asked as well.

As an answer it leaves something to be desired.
The desire was to expose another Alarmist who isn't able to stand over his fear mongering nonsense, mission accomplished.
 


RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
Extra coral debris.

Stands to reason doesn't it?
?

Not sure what you think you're getting at there but coral's evolved in the Cambrian era when CO2 levels were ten to twenty times higher than they are today and corals thrived then...
 
Last edited:

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
good for you, mr smartypants
nah - as opposed to those of us who believe in scientific evidence.

so you reckon that AGW Deniers aren't rich ???
the planet's most famous Denier - mr Trump ?
& his Republican party fellow Deniers ????
not to mention the fossil fuel millionaires.
don't think too many of these geezers are short of a shilling, mr Iarmuid ?

wealthy Deniers, indeed deniers, millionaires or paupers, are not so thick on the ground, this side of the Atlantic.
there is however a group of em in GB - mainly looney rightie titled gentlemen.
Lord ……..... ahem .……….. Christopher Moncton is perhaps the most infamous of them.
& in our own dear country - there's a handful of em among the brethren in our NE counties.

you "go with" with em, ol geezer - nobody is holding you back !!!
You say you believe in science but you present no science, you present only 'lol's and 'ol geezer'...
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,636
Temp_Records_Eur20190004_zpsvqyhuzyq.jpg

New national temperature records in the European Heat Wave of 2019. What is the remarkable is the incremental increase - over 2C in some cases.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,565
Yes yes, we know you don't know how to read a graph, no need to labour the point.

You brushed past this....here's what you said about models......."as for myself - I have posted hundreds of comments on AGW, & i'm pretty sure that I never based anything I said on computer models"

Then you posted a graph from PIOMAS, what do you think the M stands for??;)

You have my permission to continue pretending you're not making a fool of yourself now, oh make sure you put at least one LOL in there!:)
BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

Ahem …………..
but didn't YOU post a graph from the same source (the above graph) in post #451 LOL !!!!!

& as for me not knowing "how to read a graph" ??
anyway, it looks like that YOU don't know "how to read a graph", as the graph you posted shows a loss of c. 14 million cubic. km., or c. 70% of Artic sea ice over the 40 years of satellite monitoring LOL !!!!

now, you've been spoofing a lot here recently about "real world data".
well, the above graph is a rare example of you posting "real world data".

tosach maith, leath na h-oibre !!
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,565
Seems to show a slight rise in Arctic ice, Dearghoul?
BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

sorry - more bad news for you Rasher.
the above graph of Artic Sea Ice was posted by none other than the disputed King of the Deniers here on P.ie - none other than ol Breeal himself.

& an expert reader of graphs like yourself will see that ol Breeal's graph shows a loss of c. 14 million cubic. km., or c. 70% of Artic sea ice over the 40 years of satellite monitoring !!!!

I know Rasher that it may not be of much solace to you, but the graph does show a significant increase in Artic Sea Ice between 1981 & 1985.

& if your & ol Breeal's hero, the conman Tony Heller was commenting on the graph, he'd tell you that there was more Artic Sea Ice in 1995 than there was in 1981.

& sure he might even throw in for good measure, a few newspaper cuttings as further evidence of an increase in sea ice, although he has also told you that you can't believe anything you read in the newspapers. LOL !!!
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
EB3L_HPXUAILOxi?format=jpg&name=small.jpg
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

sorry - more bad news for you Rasher.
the above graph of Artic Sea Ice was posted by none other than the disputed King of the Deniers here on P.ie - none other than ol Breeal himself.

& an expert reader of graphs like yourself will see that ol Breeal's graph shows a loss of c. 14 million cubic. km., or c. 70% of Artic sea ice over the 40 years of satellite monitoring !!!!

I know Rasher that it may not be of much solace to you, but the graph does show a significant increase in Artic Sea Ice between 1981 & 1985.

& if your & ol Breeal's hero, the conman Tony Heller was commenting on the graph, he'd tell you that there was more Artic Sea Ice in 1995 than there was in 1981.

& sure he might even throw in for good measure, a few newspaper cuttings as further evidence of an increase in sea ice, although he has also told you that you can't believe anything you read in the newspapers. LOL !!!
Lol yourself.

Simple question, what was happening before 1980? :)
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
According to the Norwegian Meteorological Institute there is little or no change in sea ice volume in the past ten years...

QLIOXu0dFEi4DtFxFYazwGuyau56ZOtnT3ufpfpgZijXXFhExA.png
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,565
Lol yourself.

Simple question, what was happening before 1980? :)
Seaice-1870-part-2009.png

don't know why you're asking an Alarmist like me, Rasher ?
where's your God, Tony Heller, when you need him ?

maybe the above will e of assistance ?
don't mention.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
Seaice-1870-part-2009.png

don't know why you're asking an Alarmist like me, Rasher ?
where's your God, Tony Heller, when you need him ?

maybe the above will e of assistance ?
don't mention.
Very unclear what you are showing me there, you've no heading, no link to source, it's a complete departure from your former graph. It's almost as if you want to disguise whatever it is you are trying to say.

The NMI graph I imaged above shows no change in sea ice over the past ten years.

Heller points out that NOAA begin their loss of sea ice graph in 1979 because it is the coldest greatest sea ice mass on record, so naturally the graph will all flow down hill from there.

Of course if they purposefully did that it would be in order to fool people like you into believing there is a catastrophe about to happen and they could therefore cash in.

You don't have any fears that that is what NOAA did do you?
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
Electroverse

@Electroversenet

·
6h

MOSCOW ON TRACK FOR COLDEST AUG ON RECORD IN BOOKS DATING BACK 150+ YEARS "The first week of Aug in Moscow saw an avg. air temp of just 13C (55.4F) -- some 5C below the norm. The cold times are returning, in line with historically low solar activity."
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,565
Very unclear what you are showing me there, you've no heading, no link to source, it's a complete departure from your former graph. It's almost as if you want to disguise whatever it is you are trying to say.

The NMI graph I imaged above shows no change in sea ice over the past ten years.

Heller points out that NOAA begin their loss of sea ice graph in 1979 because it is the coldest greatest sea ice mass on record, so naturally the graph will all flow down hill from there.

Of course if they purposefully did that it would be in order to fool people like you into believing there is a catastrophe about to happen and they could therefore cash in.

You don't have any fears that that is what NOAA did do you?
I just got that graph from Wiki.
there are plenty of good sites out there on Artic Ice, so do your own research, Rasher.
I think that you'll find that Artic Ice extent remained fairy stable until c. 1950s - it must however have been hard to estimate it before the satellite era.

you say - Heller points out that NOAA begin their loss of sea ice graph in 1979 because it is the coldest greatest sea ice mass on record.

does he say that Rasher ? - doesn't surprise me - how many times did I tell you that he's a conman ?

did it occur to you at all, at all, that satellite monitoring commenced in 1979 & that that might have had something to do with it ?
& BTW Rasher, what data did Heller give you for the 1960s/70s - you know before "the coldest greatest" 1979 ??

According to the Norwegian Meteorological Institute there is little or no change in sea ice volume in the past ten years...

QLIOXu0dFEi4DtFxFYazwGuyau56ZOtnT3ufpfpgZijXXFhExA.png
I reckon that the Norwegian Meteorological Institute are correct.
the graph that ol Breeal posted - you know he one that shows a loss of c. 14 million cubic. km., or c. 70% of Artic sea ice over the 40 years of satellite monitoring - that graph indicates much the same thing.

but calm down Rasher - it's a bit premature to crack open that bottle of champagne.
I'm not sure that the Ice Age that ol Turbinator has been predicting for so long now, has at last arrived.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
Tom Nelson

@tan123

·
2h

I have children and I scoff, loudly, at the idea that a few hundred ppm CO2 in any way threatens their future.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624
I just got that graph from Wiki.
there are plenty of good sites out there on Artic Ice, so do your own research, Rasher.
I think that you'll find that Artic Ice extent remained fairy stable until c. 1950s - it must however have been hard to estimate it before the satellite era.

you say - Heller points out that NOAA begin their loss of sea ice graph in 1979 because it is the coldest greatest sea ice mass on record.

does he say that Rasher ? - doesn't surprise me - how many times did I tell you that he's a conman ?

did it occur to you at all, at all, that satellite monitoring commenced in 1979 & that that might have had something to do with it ?
& BTW Rasher, what data did Heller give you for the 1960s/70s - you know before "the coldest greatest" 1979 ??
I don't buy the 'satellite' excuse, there was data for the period prior to 1979, and you have to admit it's very suspicious that 79 was the greatest extent of sea ice in the recent past and that's exactly when NOAA start their graph, so that it gives a fake reading showing a rapid decrease when that is far from the whole story.

This is a graph showing the missing data for the decades prior to 79...

QmawzZSTl4XRxGlUplO3WA2QDP2qbheL_gQT5gW640Uc2Z8WWo.jpg

The NOAA graph doesn't look exceptional and it shows as much ice extent in the late 1920s as there was in 1979, then it shows the rapid drop off of ice as the 30 and 40s heat up and then the steady increase in the 60s and 70s culminating in the 1979 high.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,565
Tom Nelson
@tan123

·
2h

I have children and I scoff, loudly, at the idea that a few hundred ppm CO2 in any way threatens their future.
you ran away again - you're unable to address my last comments, as I told you before in relation to previous comments.

re your & my children - because they're lucky to live in a "rich" country, I reckon that there's a good chance that they may not be too badly impacted by GW - but that may be wishful thinking - the thing is nobody knows 100%.

it will be the poor in the poorest regions of the planet - the regions that are barely habitable at present, due to high temperature, drought, extreme climatic events, that will be first & most impacted.

maybe the greatest risk to our children, will be the breakdown in global order, resulting from GW ?
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,624


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top