| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" 09:56 - Nov 18 with 24847 views | sP7qupUf |
Is this a genuine attempt to address pressing issues or a smokescreen to detract away from the ongoing issues with the C-19 pandemic, emerging issues around cronyism and the potential disaster with the "oven ready" Brexit deal? The lack of detail would suggest the latter to my mind. |  | | |  |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:19 - Nov 24 with 1392 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 10:26 - Nov 24 by Catullus |
438 million views doesn't mean anything to me. How many of those 438 million believed what was there or went away laughing, how many are serious scientists and how many are crackpots, how many ended up there by accident by clicking the wrong link maybe? How many of them are repeat visits?
There are many millions of football fans across the world but how many of us know sweet FA about football?
We have plenty of experts in government who seem to know nothing too.
Reading Scotia's post, why would he misrepresent how many times he's worked for Haertland? Or why would you, I can give you the benefit of the doubt though.
Finally, I guess, there are experts in the same fields across the world and they don't all agree. That is an absolute truth. So you carry on believeing what you choose to believe and I'll carry on thinking humans are damaging ecosystems, destroying environments, poisoning the seas, polluting the air we breath and we need to do something about it. |
Cat, I agee with you completely about "humans are damaging ecosystems, destroying environments, poisoning the seas, polluting the air we breath and we need to do something about it. "
I am just disappointed that the world is wasting Billions, heading towards Trillions trying to cut CO2, the very life blood of Plant life and therefore ours as well instead.
They are also trying to stop the world from warming, which is much better for humans, cold kills far more than warmth. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 14:22]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:34 - Nov 24 with 1376 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:15 - Nov 24 by A_Fans_Dad |
I see and being paid by the Governmentor or the UN to produce the results the Government and the UN want is not a conflict of interest.
It is about time you got real and realized that Scientists provide the payer with what they want.
Do you disagree with data and photos of the Stations showing that they do not meet NASA's standards for the simplest of reasons or the ones that do meet the standard?
Did you look at all the photos?
Come to that do you even know the US standard?
If not, the rest is immaterial, anybody can take photos and videos that show the truth, you definitly do not need a Phd to do so.
You just continue to use personal attacks of the people doing the survey.
I have already explained and you refuse to acknowledge that there is no, or very little warming trend in the Raw data in the USA, the warming trend is from the adjustments as declared by NASA, you obviously have not read the Menne2009 paper which is not just applied to the USA, but all world temperatures.
You also have also completely failed to explain the mass adjusments to the Chart I have posted. It is also a telling fact that you have not bothered to ask for more examples, which I have available.
The Ametsoc study showed that small scale Urban encroachement increased warming both during day and at night but more so at night lowering the diurnal difference which is reflected in the whole of the global Temperature record.
It stands to reason that large scale Urban encroachment will have an even larger affect.
It therefore also stands to reason that badly sited stations, ie too close to airt conditioning unit's exhausts, Jet engines and asphalt will also increase that difference and create more day and night time warming. |
I refuse to acknowledge it because it is wrong. In countless pages of inane ramblings you haven't produced a shred of even half decent science to back it up. It is basic physics, to that end who is paying Prof Cox to lie about this? There is a warming trend in the data all over the world. Raw data is only adjusted where we absolutely know it is wrong and by how much, one of the principle reasons for this is urban encroachment. It is adjusted in both directions to make sure it is accurate.
It wasn't long ago that you posted a paper (from a Russian state, massive fossil fuel exporter, uni) blaming one El Nino event for the warming trend. I pointed out how clearly wrong that was - do you now agree? Or is El Nino warming the climate in Russia and lies in the USA? Don't forget that same paper also placed no doubt on the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.
Come to mention it why do you constantly bang on about data from the USA? I can tell you why, because you get this info from the lunatic conspiracy theory fringe of the right wing. You have been utterly brainwashed, none of this is your own research.
Can you show me evidence that the Deutscher Wetterdienst, Météo-France or our own Met Office don't show a warming trend in their raw data? I believe we are on the same planet as the USA even though it doesn't feel like it some times.
As I've said before photos are absolutely not an acceptable way to assess a weather station.
So that is the (ir)relevance of that paper? I thought so. That would be why No 1 on the undesirable site list for the met office is "Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature". Believe it or not these Met Office sites with no temperature impact from buildings have also recorded a warming trend. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:09 - Nov 24 with 1366 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:34 - Nov 24 by Scotia |
I refuse to acknowledge it because it is wrong. In countless pages of inane ramblings you haven't produced a shred of even half decent science to back it up. It is basic physics, to that end who is paying Prof Cox to lie about this? There is a warming trend in the data all over the world. Raw data is only adjusted where we absolutely know it is wrong and by how much, one of the principle reasons for this is urban encroachment. It is adjusted in both directions to make sure it is accurate.
It wasn't long ago that you posted a paper (from a Russian state, massive fossil fuel exporter, uni) blaming one El Nino event for the warming trend. I pointed out how clearly wrong that was - do you now agree? Or is El Nino warming the climate in Russia and lies in the USA? Don't forget that same paper also placed no doubt on the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.
Come to mention it why do you constantly bang on about data from the USA? I can tell you why, because you get this info from the lunatic conspiracy theory fringe of the right wing. You have been utterly brainwashed, none of this is your own research.
Can you show me evidence that the Deutscher Wetterdienst, Météo-France or our own Met Office don't show a warming trend in their raw data? I believe we are on the same planet as the USA even though it doesn't feel like it some times.
As I've said before photos are absolutely not an acceptable way to assess a weather station.
So that is the (ir)relevance of that paper? I thought so. That would be why No 1 on the undesirable site list for the met office is "Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature". Believe it or not these Met Office sites with no temperature impact from buildings have also recorded a warming trend. |
You waffle and point blank refuse to recognize a 2 degree adjustment to the raw data as shown in the NASA chart I posted, let alone try and justify it.
The rest is just appeals to authority.
Yes the largest jumps in atmospheric temperatures were both caused by El Ninos in 1997/8 & 2015/16.
Co2 cannot possibly cause large increases in temperature in less than 12 months.
Or maybe you have some very special physics that allow it?
I concentrate on the USA data because I know where to find it, which you obviously don't.
You are so sure that our Met office data is so good, pehaps you care to explain how they declare record breaking high temperatures using a station at Heathrow and a long term first class station that has been degraded by urban sprawl.
So let me get this straight you are telling everyone that a photo showing a weather station too close to an air conditioning unit and therefore not meeting the USA siting standard does NOT categorically prove it is not a class 1 or 2 station.
If you are I will call you a liar here and now.
How can there not be some warming, we have come out of a little ice age, or do you not acknowledge that there was one.
I haven't said the world has not warmed, just not as much as the manipulated data suggests. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 17:23]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:00 - Nov 24 with 1357 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:09 - Nov 24 by A_Fans_Dad |
You waffle and point blank refuse to recognize a 2 degree adjustment to the raw data as shown in the NASA chart I posted, let alone try and justify it.
The rest is just appeals to authority.
Yes the largest jumps in atmospheric temperatures were both caused by El Ninos in 1997/8 & 2015/16.
Co2 cannot possibly cause large increases in temperature in less than 12 months.
Or maybe you have some very special physics that allow it?
I concentrate on the USA data because I know where to find it, which you obviously don't.
You are so sure that our Met office data is so good, pehaps you care to explain how they declare record breaking high temperatures using a station at Heathrow and a long term first class station that has been degraded by urban sprawl.
So let me get this straight you are telling everyone that a photo showing a weather station too close to an air conditioning unit and therefore not meeting the USA siting standard does NOT categorically prove it is not a class 1 or 2 station.
If you are I will call you a liar here and now.
How can there not be some warming, we have come out of a little ice age, or do you not acknowledge that there was one.
I haven't said the world has not warmed, just not as much as the manipulated data suggests. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 17:23]
|
Just a non waffling quick response to easily refute two more nonsensical claims.
Record temperature at Heathrow was also recorded at Kew. You may have heard there's a big garden at Kew, guess were the Met station is? That's right in the garden. Any impacts of the environment at Heathrow will be accounted for and adjusted
So now it is two el nino events, what about the others that have occurred since the oceans have existed in their current format? That's about 250000 years.
I know you know where to access the data. I've already mentioned the source. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 18:21]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:26 - Nov 24 with 1338 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:00 - Nov 24 by Scotia |
Just a non waffling quick response to easily refute two more nonsensical claims.
Record temperature at Heathrow was also recorded at Kew. You may have heard there's a big garden at Kew, guess were the Met station is? That's right in the garden. Any impacts of the environment at Heathrow will be accounted for and adjusted
So now it is two el nino events, what about the others that have occurred since the oceans have existed in their current format? That's about 250000 years.
I know you know where to access the data. I've already mentioned the source. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 18:21]
|
Show me the data where Kew and Heathrow have the same values, as you know so much about the Met I am sure you can find the files and values for July 2015.
It just so happens that there are two stations on Heathrow, the record breaking one showed 98.1 and the other one, the egll site only showed 95 as did the 3 nearest sites at Sunbury, Northolt and Ruislip, all of which are closer than Kew.
I await with baited breath. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 07:59 - Nov 25 with 1326 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 22:26 - Nov 24 by A_Fans_Dad |
Show me the data where Kew and Heathrow have the same values, as you know so much about the Met I am sure you can find the files and values for July 2015.
It just so happens that there are two stations on Heathrow, the record breaking one showed 98.1 and the other one, the egll site only showed 95 as did the 3 nearest sites at Sunbury, Northolt and Ruislip, all of which are closer than Kew.
I await with baited breath. |
Release that bated breath AFD, you've been holding it for 9 hours it can't be comfortable. I'm back to dismiss this reply and put you at ease.
You didn't mention 2015 now did you? That is a spectacular piece of cherry picking.
An even that attempt at a comparison like that illustrates your confusion between weather and climate. Nobody says that Heathrow is perfect it's primarily there for aviation - nevertheless a very high temperature has been recorded. However exactly the same trend is seen at those other stations you mention which also recorded incredibly high temperatures on the same day within a few minutes of that record for example :-
Heathrow 31/7/20 - 14:41 - 37.8 degrees
Kew (gardens) 31/7/20 - 14:55 - 37.3 degrees
The impacts of the site of the airport weather station will be accounted for if appropriate in validation.
The assessment of climate change is drawn from long term trends and not individual record days at individual sites. They are basically for the media to report and for climate deniers to misunderstand.
As you may be aware neither of these are record temperatures for the UK which was set the week before this in the sprawling metropolis of Cambridge. In the Botanical garden. Again though that is a one off individual reading. Nevertheless the long term trend is still a significant increase in temperature.
Anyway so El Nino? You've mentioned two that apparently are causing current climate change what about the other few thousand that have had no impact?
I await with bated breath. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:03 - Nov 25 with 1312 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 07:59 - Nov 25 by Scotia |
Release that bated breath AFD, you've been holding it for 9 hours it can't be comfortable. I'm back to dismiss this reply and put you at ease.
You didn't mention 2015 now did you? That is a spectacular piece of cherry picking.
An even that attempt at a comparison like that illustrates your confusion between weather and climate. Nobody says that Heathrow is perfect it's primarily there for aviation - nevertheless a very high temperature has been recorded. However exactly the same trend is seen at those other stations you mention which also recorded incredibly high temperatures on the same day within a few minutes of that record for example :-
Heathrow 31/7/20 - 14:41 - 37.8 degrees
Kew (gardens) 31/7/20 - 14:55 - 37.3 degrees
The impacts of the site of the airport weather station will be accounted for if appropriate in validation.
The assessment of climate change is drawn from long term trends and not individual record days at individual sites. They are basically for the media to report and for climate deniers to misunderstand.
As you may be aware neither of these are record temperatures for the UK which was set the week before this in the sprawling metropolis of Cambridge. In the Botanical garden. Again though that is a one off individual reading. Nevertheless the long term trend is still a significant increase in temperature.
Anyway so El Nino? You've mentioned two that apparently are causing current climate change what about the other few thousand that have had no impact?
I await with bated breath. |
2015 was declared a Record, so no cherry picking as they chose it and I knew where to find the data.
This one
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11734750/Met-Office-defend
You quote the 31/07/2020 which was not a Record, merely a hottest day of the year to date and yet there is no proof, just a statement by the Met Office.
No link to the actual Met Office data, so let's see it then.
"The impacts of the site of the airport weather station will be accounted for if appropriate in validation. "
Yes and it shows 0.5C extra warming at Heathrow, which would be game, set & match under Record breaking conditions.
You had better try again, with some actual data, you know like a Met Office file. [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 12:30]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:28 - Nov 25 with 1302 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Further to you Heathrow failure I have just downloaded the Met Office daily Max/min data for Heathrow and the closest station they currently list at Oxford.
Heathrow here
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/heathrowdat
Oxford here
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/oxforddata.
The data for Heathrow start in 1948, so I have only used data since then for Oxford which goes back to 1853.
If you subtract the Max Oxford values from the Heathrow Max values you can then plot the chart and Trend line. This provides the UHI affect of Heathrow over that of Oxford.
I did the sane for the MIn values.
The Trend since 1948 is approximately +0.2C for the Max and +0.8C for the Min, thereby confirming that Heathrow is warmer than Oxford and as I said the largest affect is at night.
Perhaps you can find some Met data to refute this.
ps I have just done the same for Manson Airport, data here
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/manstondata
which is much nearer the coast and Heathrow and it shows the same, but to a lesser extent.
Max difference trend 0.15C and MIn 0.50C.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2020 15:19]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:46 - Nov 25 with 1289 views | felixstowe_jack |
Still people disputing that the UKs weather is not getting warmer every year. Record summer and winter temperatures. It is near December and so far only 1 mild frost. Can't remember the last hard winter we had. They were regular in the 60s. End of November but roses still in bloom as are a lot of other plants. My snowdrops are poking their heads up even the daffodils are are just breaking the surface. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:47 - Nov 25 with 1289 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:28 - Nov 25 by A_Fans_Dad |
Further to you Heathrow failure I have just downloaded the Met Office daily Max/min data for Heathrow and the closest station they currently list at Oxford.
Heathrow here
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/heathrowdat
Oxford here
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/oxforddata.
The data for Heathrow start in 1948, so I have only used data since then for Oxford which goes back to 1853.
If you subtract the Max Oxford values from the Heathrow Max values you can then plot the chart and Trend line. This provides the UHI affect of Heathrow over that of Oxford.
I did the sane for the MIn values.
The Trend since 1948 is approximately +0.2C for the Max and +0.8C for the Min, thereby confirming that Heathrow is warmer than Oxford and as I said the largest affect is at night.
Perhaps you can find some Met data to refute this.
ps I have just done the same for Manson Airport, data here
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/manstondata
which is much nearer the coast and Heathrow and it shows the same, but to a lesser extent.
Max difference trend 0.15C and MIn 0.50C.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2020 15:19]
|
As I said you didn't mention 2015, which wasn't a record anyway that was set in 2003. I then mentioned the actual warmest temperature recorded at Cambridge Botanical Gardens in 2019, the highest temperature recorded at that station in over 100 years.
Well done. Urban areas are warmer, give yourself a grade C in Geography GCSE. In my comparison I mentioned the 0.5 degree difference between the two. What difference does this make to climate change? Are all of the climate sites in urban areas?
You seem to have wasted a bit of time researching something I haven't disputed, I suspect because you can't find any evidence to support what I do dispute. One of these things is your El Nino theory.
You come back and show me that UHI's demonstrate an increase in temperature trends that isn't seen elsewhere. So far you've listed three sites that don't show that relationship. An average increase of 0.46 degrees, and likely to accelerate, in 70 years is worrying. We aren't even in one of the global areas of peak warming. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:13 - Nov 25 with 1269 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:47 - Nov 25 by Scotia |
As I said you didn't mention 2015, which wasn't a record anyway that was set in 2003. I then mentioned the actual warmest temperature recorded at Cambridge Botanical Gardens in 2019, the highest temperature recorded at that station in over 100 years.
Well done. Urban areas are warmer, give yourself a grade C in Geography GCSE. In my comparison I mentioned the 0.5 degree difference between the two. What difference does this make to climate change? Are all of the climate sites in urban areas?
You seem to have wasted a bit of time researching something I haven't disputed, I suspect because you can't find any evidence to support what I do dispute. One of these things is your El Nino theory.
You come back and show me that UHI's demonstrate an increase in temperature trends that isn't seen elsewhere. So far you've listed three sites that don't show that relationship. An average increase of 0.46 degrees, and likely to accelerate, in 70 years is worrying. We aren't even in one of the global areas of peak warming. |
Misdirection yet again.
Another lie "As I said you didn't mention 2015, which wasn't a record anyway that was set in 2003"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11734750/Met-Office-defend
Quote "pehaps you care to explain how they declare record breaking high temperatures using a station at Heathrow and a long term first class station that has been degraded by urban sprawl. "
Heathrow only broke the temperature record because of the UHI, it is not a good enough station to use for establishing Highest ever temeperatures.
You introduced Kew, not me as a way to justify Heathrow as being accurate enough for record breaking because you had nothing else, your Kew data even showed that it wasn't suitable and I have now confirmed it with Met Office data from 2 other stations.
You have done nothing but more waffling.
Give it up, you may know something about Weather Stations but in this case you are out of your depth.
You can't even find actual data, you couldn't find any data to back up Cox, you can't justify 2.0C adjustments to past data, you can't justify adjusting RAW data between versions of GISS and now you can't justify using Heathrow as a valid station for announcing new records.
You have even lied, which with your knowledge and educataion is inexcusable.
You waffle, use weaselwords, diversion, character assassination to exclude official data, appeals to authority even using your friends and cannot admit when you are wrong, you never post any worthwhile data or links.
You can post as much as you like but you have shown nothing, no understanding of how the Major BOMs share and adjust data, no understanding of their corruption of the raw data that always increases the warming trends.
I have said enough is enough before and you post more diversionary crap which I shoot down with data and facts and you just continue with the bullshit.
I will no longer respond to your nonsense on temperature data.
As to El Nino theory I did not say that other Ninos have not affected the temperatures in the past, only that 1997/98 and 2015/16 were the largest.
Air
And Sea
and surface
So here is another bit of NASA corruption for you you to try and argue against, from the 1997 El Nino year.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
Note the mistake of using the ACTUAL temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit as well as the anomaly of 0,42C.
Then look at 1998 which was even hotter here
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199813
Which is even hotter than 1997.
Now compare that with Actual Temperature they declare as the hottest ever in the 2015/16 El Nino here
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713
Where they declare "The 2017 average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), behind the record year 2016 (+0.94°C / +1.69°F) and 2015 (+0.90°C / +1.62°F; second warmest year on record) both influenced by a strong El Niño episode."
Get that 57.0F plus 1.69F = 58.69F and they decalare it the hottest ever.
Ther justification when it was pointed out was they used "different calculations. Of course they did.
But don't bother responding to this because I am longer interested in your opinion on anything to do with temperatures.
Bye  [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 17:24]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:35 - Nov 25 with 1267 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:13 - Nov 25 by A_Fans_Dad |
Misdirection yet again.
Another lie "As I said you didn't mention 2015, which wasn't a record anyway that was set in 2003"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11734750/Met-Office-defend
Quote "pehaps you care to explain how they declare record breaking high temperatures using a station at Heathrow and a long term first class station that has been degraded by urban sprawl. "
Heathrow only broke the temperature record because of the UHI, it is not a good enough station to use for establishing Highest ever temeperatures.
You introduced Kew, not me as a way to justify Heathrow as being accurate enough for record breaking because you had nothing else, your Kew data even showed that it wasn't suitable and I have now confirmed it with Met Office data from 2 other stations.
You have done nothing but more waffling.
Give it up, you may know something about Weather Stations but in this case you are out of your depth.
You can't even find actual data, you couldn't find any data to back up Cox, you can't justify 2.0C adjustments to past data, you can't justify adjusting RAW data between versions of GISS and now you can't justify using Heathrow as a valid station for announcing new records.
You have even lied, which with your knowledge and educataion is inexcusable.
You waffle, use weaselwords, diversion, character assassination to exclude official data, appeals to authority even using your friends and cannot admit when you are wrong, you never post any worthwhile data or links.
You can post as much as you like but you have shown nothing, no understanding of how the Major BOMs share and adjust data, no understanding of their corruption of the raw data that always increases the warming trends.
I have said enough is enough before and you post more diversionary crap which I shoot down with data and facts and you just continue with the bullshit.
I will no longer respond to your nonsense on temperature data.
As to El Nino theory I did not say that other Ninos have not affected the temperatures in the past, only that 1997/98 and 2015/16 were the largest.
Air
And Sea
and surface
So here is another bit of NASA corruption for you you to try and argue against, from the 1997 El Nino year.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
Note the mistake of using the ACTUAL temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit as well as the anomaly of 0,42C.
Then look at 1998 which was even hotter here
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199813
Which is even hotter than 1997.
Now compare that with Actual Temperature they declare as the hottest ever in the 2015/16 El Nino here
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713
Where they declare "The 2017 average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), behind the record year 2016 (+0.94°C / +1.69°F) and 2015 (+0.90°C / +1.62°F; second warmest year on record) both influenced by a strong El Niño episode."
Get that 57.0F plus 1.69F = 58.69F and they decalare it the hottest ever.
Ther justification when it was pointed out was they used "different calculations. Of course they did.
But don't bother responding to this because I am longer interested in your opinion on anything to do with temperatures.
Bye [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 17:24]
|
Of course you don't want me to respond because I call out the inaccuracies in every post. Without resorting to getting data. It's not needed because the basis of your argument is flawed. The data you post usually disproves your own argument.
You don't understand the science of weather, the science of climate and the differences between the two. You don't understand science. In every conversation with you it is clear you have no scientific qualification whatsoever.
You read lunatic conspiracy theory websites and get information from them you've become utterly brainwashed.
Anyway I'm happy I've demonstrated the above to the readers of this forum and I'd be happy to put it to a vote. Not I that I think anyone would care.
By the way, I haven't read the quoted post. I'll let you know what's wrong with it tomorrow.
Meanwhile, calm down, this isn't good for you. And leave the lunatic fringe of the American right wing where they are. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 20:52 - Nov 25 with 1253 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:35 - Nov 25 by Scotia |
Of course you don't want me to respond because I call out the inaccuracies in every post. Without resorting to getting data. It's not needed because the basis of your argument is flawed. The data you post usually disproves your own argument.
You don't understand the science of weather, the science of climate and the differences between the two. You don't understand science. In every conversation with you it is clear you have no scientific qualification whatsoever.
You read lunatic conspiracy theory websites and get information from them you've become utterly brainwashed.
Anyway I'm happy I've demonstrated the above to the readers of this forum and I'd be happy to put it to a vote. Not I that I think anyone would care.
By the way, I haven't read the quoted post. I'll let you know what's wrong with it tomorrow.
Meanwhile, calm down, this isn't good for you. And leave the lunatic fringe of the American right wing where they are. |
As its half time I thought I'd point out why this latest bunch of data is completely irrelevant in the context of climate change. It's nothing new. As usual.
I don't need diversion and to be honest can't be bothered to get any data myself. You give me enough.
ENSO's have been occurring since the end of the last ice age. The first documented one was at some point in the 1600's. The website you've got this from has cherry picked the last 40 years, the warming trend attributable to anthropogenic climate change began way before that. All that is showing is ENSO adding to climate variability, which it does obviously.
For this data to have any relevance to current climate change you need to plot from 1900 at least, of course 10,000 bc would be even better. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:30 - Nov 26 with 1227 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 15:46 - Nov 25 by felixstowe_jack |
Still people disputing that the UKs weather is not getting warmer every year. Record summer and winter temperatures. It is near December and so far only 1 mild frost. Can't remember the last hard winter we had. They were regular in the 60s. End of November but roses still in bloom as are a lot of other plants. My snowdrops are poking their heads up even the daffodils are are just breaking the surface. |
Of course it is getting warmer, we are still coming out of the little ice age, look up the Thames Ice Fairs for relevance.
Do you want to return to those conditions? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:35 - Nov 26 with 1223 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:30 - Nov 26 by A_Fans_Dad |
Of course it is getting warmer, we are still coming out of the little ice age, look up the Thames Ice Fairs for relevance.
Do you want to return to those conditions? |
You are correct to a certain extent. I for one would not like to go back to those times. Although it could be more pleasant than trying to live in Bangladesh in 200 years time.
A rebound from the Little Ice Age is not why the climate is currently warming. It is still debated whether the LIA was in fact a global event, and not local conditions just impacting the Northern Atlantic at a particular time and other areas seperately.
Warming until about 100 years ago may be linked to moving out of the Little Ice Age and increases in solar activity and decreased volcanic action. There has been no increase in solar activity and no decrease in volcanic action over that time but warming has accelerated. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:15 - Nov 26 with 1203 views | Scotia |
Some significant mistakes in there. I haven't read it all and it's too long but his discussion of UHI's is fundamentally wrong. The data you posted yesterday demonstrated it. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:42 - Nov 26 with 1198 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:12 - Nov 26 by Scotia |
Solar will be doing pretty well though. |
Yes, zero at the moment. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 20:08 - Nov 26 with 1171 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:21 - Nov 26 by Groo |
The first electrical generators had to be within a mile of the houses they supplied and limited to a small number of houses.
Like all things new, until used and improved they will be expensive and limited.
Not convinced on wind power myself but we'll see where the future will take us.
Oil and Gas are finite supplies, so they have to start somewhere looking for replacement. |
They already have it, it is called Methane Hydrate or Methane Clathrate.
Wind Turbines have been around a long time now, but it doesn't matter how advanced they are, they are still useless when the wind doesn't blow.
Solar Panels are no good when the sun doesn't shine between sunset and sunrise.
Both of them also do not last very long before too much degradation sets in and they need replacing.
Small Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors should be the future and possibly this if the story is to be believed, watch the videos.
https://www.safireproject.com/index.html# [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 20:08]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:12 - Nov 27 with 1150 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Another day of virtually no Wind power at 0.55Gw or 1.36% od demand.
Good old Coal from 34 to 53 year old power stations providing is 7.1% of demand, while Gas is supplying 60%.
Because of the high over Europe during the breakfast time peak there was also nothing available from the Euro connectors either.
More bad news on the Green front, EV cars are likely to take 50,000 miles just to offset the extra CO2 emmitted during their Production.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/analysis-polestar-lifts-lid-lifetime
Plus fast charging drastically reduces battery life and can even damage the battery.
Welcome to Boris's green new future. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 11:21]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:42 - Nov 27 with 1143 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:12 - Nov 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Another day of virtually no Wind power at 0.55Gw or 1.36% od demand.
Good old Coal from 34 to 53 year old power stations providing is 7.1% of demand, while Gas is supplying 60%.
Because of the high over Europe during the breakfast time peak there was also nothing available from the Euro connectors either.
More bad news on the Green front, EV cars are likely to take 50,000 miles just to offset the extra CO2 emmitted during their Production.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/analysis-polestar-lifts-lid-lifetime
Plus fast charging drastically reduces battery life and can even damage the battery.
Welcome to Boris's green new future. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 11:21]
|
I take it from that Carbon free generation is accounting 32.9% of power even on a wind free winters day - that is quite impressive.
This isn't Boris's green future this is Boris's green present.
If I was in the office my entire building would be getting power from it's solar array and the grey water would be coming from the rainwater harvesting system.
All of this technology, even wind to a certain degree is in it's infancy but has made huge strides in a short space of time. Who could have imagined a car like a Tesla model 3 back in the days of the model T ford, that has been achieved in barley 100 years.
You can't stop progress and this is the kind of progress we need. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:50 - Nov 27 with 1139 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:12 - Nov 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Another day of virtually no Wind power at 0.55Gw or 1.36% od demand.
Good old Coal from 34 to 53 year old power stations providing is 7.1% of demand, while Gas is supplying 60%.
Because of the high over Europe during the breakfast time peak there was also nothing available from the Euro connectors either.
More bad news on the Green front, EV cars are likely to take 50,000 miles just to offset the extra CO2 emmitted during their Production.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/analysis-polestar-lifts-lid-lifetime
Plus fast charging drastically reduces battery life and can even damage the battery.
Welcome to Boris's green new future. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 11:21]
|
Strange latest reseach I have seen suggest less than two years to produce less co2 than a petrol diesel car. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
