On Sunday, 5 January 2020 12:02:55 UTC, Keith Harris wrote:
On Sunday, 5 January 2020 11:01:47 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 10:30, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter Spike's
point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA, The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations' national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on, past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others, far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking your head
in a bucket.

Just where do you think such an approach would have led had the
phlogistonists 'won' their case against the phlogiston deniers? Or the
microcosmic-salt supporters against the synthesisers? Or the 'chlorine
is a compound' believers against the 'chlorine is an element' supporters?

It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work - and
remember, it isn't his data, you still have to deal with that - have to
be explored scientifically rather than the emotive approach of nailing
him to a tree and sticking a garden fork in his abdomen because you
don't like what he says.


--
Spike

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?

Keith (Southend)

Humans produce 7% of the annual Co2 budget and co2 is 100 of 250k. The earths history has never had a stable climate despite what humans do. You've never lived so well deaths due to weather, famine and natural catastrophe have never been so low You all need medication

On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 09:48:46 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 06/01/2020 10:46, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:12:26 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote:

All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?


"It" appears to have got bad enough that the climate catastrophe
industry now has to be fronted by a schoolgirl variously described as
Aspergic, OCD-suffering, and depressive, rather than in this case by
scientists proving that their climate models have finally matched the
reality.

I kept out of this until now as my views are well known on USW, and the thread was sadly deteriorating.

The thread started to deteriorate when Paul Garvey posted a link to
Spencer's page and said "There's always one".

However, as someone involved with the subject you have raised (I have an autistic daughter), to attack someone with conviction because she is aspergic has crossed a line for me. People with aspergers are typically of above average intelligence and tend to focus on 1 subject, Chris Packham is a well known example. So they are worth listening to.

I didn't attack her, but merely noted characteristics that in turn have
been mentioned by her supporters, such as the following from the
family's book: "After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety
attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome,
high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective
mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside
her closest family". The book is available on Amazon, if you don't
already have a copy.

But in any case convictions are quite irrelevant here. This is not a
religion, it is a scientific subject.

To dismiss her so rather displays a side of you I hadn't spotted before.

I doubt she could offer any scientific-based comment or insight more
significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the data or
analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my comment
that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn.

Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward
their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that
the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything
that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the
perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive
sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the
believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be
off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished
beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread.

--
Spike

What has been 'clearly demonstrated' is denial of what we clearly face.

Good luck pushing your case.

Name me a time in human history that was better than the present

On 15/01/2020 00:52, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 09:48:46 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC, Spike wrote:

I doubt Greta Thunberg could offer any scientific-based comment or
insight more significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the
data or analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my
comment that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn.
Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward
their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that
the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything
that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the
perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive
sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the
believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be
off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished
beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread.

What has been 'clearly demonstrated' is denial of what we clearly face.

Good luck pushing your case.

Name me a time in human history that was better than the present

The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period? But in those times
atmospheric CO2 was lower than at present, meaning crops, etc, would be
poorer. But humankind survived that heating of the planet.

I expect the data-collectors of the group could easily say how far south
from, say, the environs of Stoke-on-Trent one would have to travel to
experience a 1.5degC increase in the climate - I'm guessing somewhere
as far as Salisbury or Chichester.


--
Spike

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 10:37:47 UTC, Spike wrote:
On 15/01/2020 00:52, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 09:48:46 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC, Spike wrote:

I doubt Greta Thunberg could offer any scientific-based comment or
insight more significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the
data or analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my
comment that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn.
Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward
their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that
the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything
that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the
perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive
sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the
believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be
off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished
beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread.

What has been 'clearly demonstrated' is denial of what we clearly face.

Good luck pushing your case.

Name me a time in human history that was better than the present

The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period? But in those times
atmospheric CO2 was lower than at present, meaning crops, etc, would be
poorer. But humankind survived that heating of the planet.

I expect the data-collectors of the group could easily say how far south
from, say, the environs of Stoke-on-Trent one would have to travel to
experience a 1.5degC increase in the climate - I'm guessing somewhere
as far as Salisbury or Chichester.


--
Spike

Co2 levels were high during the dinosaur period, that ended well!

Yes, we have never had it so good, well, not everyone, but at what cost, the problem is we are just guessing at how this is going forward, but we can see the direction?

Keith (Southend)

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:37:47 AM UTC, Spike wrote:


The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period? But in those times
atmospheric CO2 was lower than at present, meaning crops, etc, would be
poorer. But humankind survived that heating of the planet.

I expect the data-collectors of the group could easily say how far south
from, say, the environs of Stoke-on-Trent one would have to travel to
experience a 1.5degC increase in the climate - I'm guessing somewhere
as far as Salisbury or Chichester.


--
Spike

We have already surpassed the warmth of the MWP. I have a vague recollection of HH Lamb (Climate History and the Modern World, and the previous 'Climate' book) referring to it being 0.7C warmer than the coldest part of the C20. The difference is that we have warmed so quickly this time. Some people kept reading those sources for too long into the current warming period. It is nice to keep textbooks but we have to be careful as the details can become out of date.

Spike, you attach a great significance to the MWP and the LIA - neither were truly global phenomena in the sense of the current global warming crisis.

PS if you were confident in your assertions, would you not identify yourself?

Julian Mayes

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 12:22:20 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:37:47 AM UTC, Spike wrote:


The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period? But in those times
atmospheric CO2 was lower than at present, meaning crops, etc, would be
poorer. But humankind survived that heating of the planet.

I expect the data-collectors of the group could easily say how far south
from, say, the environs of Stoke-on-Trent one would have to travel to
experience a 1.5degC increase in the climate - I'm guessing somewhere
as far as Salisbury or Chichester.


--
Spike

We have already surpassed the warmth of the MWP. I have a vague recollection of HH Lamb (Climate History and the Modern World, and the previous 'Climate' book) referring to it being 0.7C warmer than the coldest part of the C20. The difference is that we have warmed so quickly this time. Some people kept reading those sources for too long into the current warming period. It is nice to keep textbooks but we have to be careful as the details can become out of date.

Spike, you attach a great significance to the MWP and the LIA - neither were truly global phenomena in the sense of the current global warming crisis.

PS if you were confident in your assertions, would you not identify yourself?

Julian Mayes

Well done Sir David Attenborough hopefully the message is finally getting through!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51123638
I'm sick of hearing from deniers now.

Keith (Southend)

Keith Harris wrote:

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 12:22:20 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:37:47 AM UTC, Spike wrote:


The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period? But in those
times atmospheric CO2 was lower than at present, meaning crops,
etc, would be poorer. But humankind survived that heating of the
planet.

I expect the data-collectors of the group could easily say how
far south from, say, the environs of Stoke-on-Trent one would
have to travel to experience a 1.5degC increase in the climate -
I'm guessing somewhere as far as Salisbury or Chichester.


--
Spike

We have already surpassed the warmth of the MWP. I have a vague
recollection of HH Lamb (Climate History and the Modern World, and
the previous 'Climate' book) referring to it being 0.7C warmer than
the coldest part of the C20. The difference is that we have warmed
so quickly this time. Some people kept reading those sources for
too long into the current warming period. It is nice to keep
textbooks but we have to be careful as the details can become out
of date.

Spike, you attach a great significance to the MWP and the LIA -
neither were truly global phenomena in the sense of the current
global warming crisis.

PS if you were confident in your assertions, would you not identify
yourself?

Julian Mayes

Well done Sir David Attenborough hopefully the message is finally
getting through!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51123638 I'm sick of
hearing from deniers now.

Keith (Southend)

Well said, indeed. Unfortunately, it seems that the message still isn't
getting through. John Gummer (Lord Deben) was on PM this afternoon
discussing the subject with Evan Davies. Lord Deben is Chairman of the
UK's Independent Committee on Climate Change. He agreed with David
Attenborough that action was needed now.That sounded promising but then
it transpired that what he meant by 'now was development of a good plan
for the UK to present to COP26 in Glasgow in November. The interim time
had to be spent on preparing budgets etc. He seemed to be saying that
the actual action had to be taken within the next 10 years. It didn't
seem to have registered with him that we don't have that sort of time.
I was busy with something else at the time so I couldn't concentrate
fully on the programme so I might have picked some of it up wrongly.
I'll have another listen when it appears on BBC Sounds.

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

On 15/01/2020 12:22, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 10:37:47 AM UTC, Spike wrote:

The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period? But in those times
atmospheric CO2 was lower than at present, meaning crops, etc, would be
poorer. But humankind survived that heating of the planet.

I expect the data-collectors of the group could easily say how far south
from, say, the environs of Stoke-on-Trent one would have to travel to
experience a 1.5degC increase in the climate - I'm guessing somewhere
as far as Salisbury or Chichester.

We have already surpassed the warmth of the MWP.

Modern proxies show lower temperatures than MWP proxies. Now, if proxies
act as a 'smoother' of 'filter' of the data, that implies that
temperatures in the MWP peaked at higher values than the proxies show,
just as is shown by the current divergence problem. So by saying that
instrument readings show that it is warmer now than then is not to
compare like with like.

No-one is growing grapes in Yorkshire...

I have a vague recollection of HH Lamb (Climate History and the Modern World, and the previous 'Climate' book) referring to it being 0.7C warmer than the coldest part of the C20. The difference is that we have warmed so quickly this time. Some people kept reading those sources for too long into the current warming period. It is nice to keep textbooks but we have to be careful as the details can become out of date.

Spike, you attach a great significance to the MWP and the LIA - neither were truly global phenomena in the sense of the current global warming crisis.

Both the LIA and the RWP and MWP were 'written out' of the Hockey Stick
graph on which so much was based, yet apparently there's scientific
papers numbered in the thousands describing them. These periods have
been described as 'occurring all over the planet' yet are not classed in
some quarters as 'global', for some reason.

PS if you were confident in your assertions, would you not identify yourself?

Sorry, too many internet stalkers following me around, including one or
two that have turned up on this group.

Julian Mayes

--
Spike

On 17/01/2020 10:11, Spike wrote:

No-one is growing grapes in Yorkshire...

Apparently they a

https://tanglewoodwine.co.uk/blogs/n...-north-england

Just one more example of misinformation from 'Spike'.

On 17/01/2020 10:24, JGD wrote:
On 17/01/2020 10:11, Spike wrote:

No-one is growing grapes in Yorkshire...

Apparently they a

https://tanglewoodwine.co.uk/blogs/n...-north-england

Just one more example of misinformation from 'Spike'.

Amazing. I look forward to trying a bottle or three.

All we need to do now is work out how the Romans (and others) survived
the climate catastrophe that existed then, without the benefit of it
being driven by increased CO2, because if they did, we can, and that
makes the CO2 issue irrelevant.

Thanks for snipping the other more technical points about proxies and stuff.


--
Spike