This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
locked into the system.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
locked into the system.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter :-)

Keith (Southend)

Keith Harris wrote:

On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming
deniers!

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of
the Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is
being locked into the system.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter
:-)

Keith (Southend)

I saw the following very telling statement on Twitter this evening:

"The planet we think we're living on no longer exists."

That sums it up perfectly :-(

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On 29 Jul 2019 21:35:48 GMT
"Norman Lynagh" wrote:

This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!

I think he's talking to you, Burt; you should put him straight.

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
locked into the system.

On 30/07/2019 01:51, Keith Harris wrote:
On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:

This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
locked into the system.

Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter :-)

It's an old technique in the 'global warming' industry that's been used
before - and it's about as authoritative as 'hide the decline' was in
its day.

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons. Perhaps NASA should practice what they preach?

JAAMOI, what is the correct level for atmospheric CO2 on which we should
be spending our trillions trying to attain?

--
Spike

On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons.

You've managed to put your finger on a key point. Concern about climate
change is about what happens on human timescales, not geological
timescales. Most children born today - at least in Western countries -
are likely to be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state of the earth in
2100 and for their children out to 2200 is what's vitally important -
food to eat, water to drink and dry land significantly above current sea
level to live.

The difference between human and geological timescales is, let's say, a
million times - it's the same ratio as between 20 seconds and a
lifetime. Will the earth survive? Yes, of course, as it has for the past
4B years. For a significant % of humanity, including your family, the
answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping what is
happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50
million years. Think human timescales!

JGD wrote:

On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better
base for comparisons.

You've managed to put your finger on a key point. Concern about
climate change is about what happens on human timescales, not
geological timescales. Most children born today - at least in Western
countries - are likely to be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state
of the earth in 2100 and for their children out to 2200 is what's
vitally important - food to eat, water to drink and dry land
significantly above current sea level to live.

The difference between human and geological timescales is, let's say,
a million times - it's the same ratio as between 20 seconds and a
lifetime. Will the earth survive? Yes, of course, as it has for the
past 4B years. For a significant % of humanity, including your
family, the answer is much less clear. The urgency is about stopping
what is happening in the next 100-200 years, not in 50,000 or one
million or 50 million years. Think human timescales!

Indeed. We hear a great deal about 'save the planet' these days. I
understand the sentiment but what is really meant is 'save the human
race'. The planet is very capable of looking after itself and will do
so long after human life is gone. Even 100-200 years may be an
optimistically long time-span. The next 50 years or so may well see
nature causing some very big problems for what we consider to be our
'civilisation'. Whatever changes are already locked into the climate
system as a result of the increased concentration of CO2 look to me
very likely to happen. I doubt if there's now any chance of stopping
them. The lifestyle changes that would be necessary are almost
certainly politically and socially unacceptable.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On 30/07/2019 10:34, Spike wrote:
On 30/07/2019 01:51, Keith Harris wrote:
On Monday, 29 July 2019 22:35:50 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:

This is a worthwhile read, especially for any global warming deniers!

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

Perhaps the most worrying factor is the progressive steepening of the
Keeling Curve. That shows that more and more climate change is being
locked into the system.

Thanks for that Norman, I've been havinf a bit of a battle on twitter :-)

It's an old technique in the 'global warming' industry that's been used
before - and it's about as authoritative as 'hide the decline' was in
its day.

As the article says: "...understanding global temperature trends
requires a long-term perspective", and viewing the NASA reference in
terms of the geologic temperature record might provide a better base for
comparisons. Perhaps NASA should practice what they preach?

JAAMOI, what is the correct level for atmospheric CO2 on which we should
be spending our trillions trying to attain?


+1, although IMHO any decent scientist would not just be looking at data
back to 1800, they would be looking at 10,000 year and million year (and
longer) timescales as well.

What I find profoundly depressing is that so much of the media coverage,
which presumably comes from press releases aimed at something like the
average IQ, only ever looks at a few decades.

An advantage that many of us here have, with our ~70 year perspective,
is that we knew people in the 50's and 60's who themselves had a 70 year
perspective. So, in the cold grey damp summers around 1960, all my great
aunts and uncles would tell us how much better the summers were when
they were our age. But anecdotal evidence from a single lifetime
supports the monotonic model which, conveniently, correlates with CO2
levels.

Your final point is a good one. The way I put it is this.

Fossil fuel use has put up carbon dioxide levels

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but we don't really know the right "curve")

We're talking about targets of 1.5 degrees (but we don't really know
what effect this will actually have).

We don't know what CO2 level will lead to 1.5 degrees

We don't know how much CO2 we need to emit to reach that level.

So the only science that is really settled is the first one and the
first part of the second.

On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
Most children born today - at least in Western countries - are likely to
be alive in 2100 and beyond. So the state of the earth in 2100 and for
their children out to 2200 is what's vitally important - food to eat,
water to drink and dry land significantly above current sea level to live.

And far more important because all of the above depend on it, access to
reasonably priced energy

Which the greens would deny them absolutely.

They day I will believe advocates of climate change being man made,
believe it actually is, is the day they cease from jetting round the
world in private jets to conferences, sell all their beachfront
properties to buy farms on Alaska and endorse nuclear power stations.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 30/07/2019 11:56, JGD wrote:
The urgency is about stopping what is happening in the next 100-200
years, not in 50,000 or one million or 50 million years. Think human
timescales!

In that case you should ignore all the 'climate crisis'
screachers and start shouting 'POPULATION crisis', until
people start to listen.

Every female who has had, or intends to have more than 2 surviving
kids is guaranteeing the demise of the human race.