COP26 progress or same old

[Jacob]

@Istrickl Though CO2 is the poster boy of the CC debate, it is only in conjunction with the other far more "active" gases released alongside and as a result of human industrialization and fossil fuel use that we can say the problem is man made. Yes these swings and changes happen all the time, the problem is that the much bigger swings in the past have been gradual and for most have taken a couple of millenia to occur. The current problem is that we have caused this swing to happen so quickly that the flora and fauna are unable to adapt and this is a big problem for us as we live off them. People in general are also unaware that the use of fossil based fertilizers in farming while actually increasing yields over the last few decades have been the major cause of soil degredation and depletion. There are a large number of qualified people within the farming industries who are postulating that unless drastic changes are made, farming as is has at most 20 years left in the UK before desertification ends it.

Our problem is we have been too successful as a species in our rising ability to change the world as we want without knowing what it will do long term and in our ability to prolong life and provide safe secure living space, which has made use multiply at an unprecedented rate. After all it took several million years for the population of the UK to reach 20 million and then 5 decades to reach 60 million. Something had to give and the planet is showing us that it is starting to.

Well yes except if the swing is big enough it doesn't swing back - we enter a new era altogether i.e. we don't get repeats of the triassic, carboniferous, etc. we get something different.

 

[Jacob]

By all means seek to discredit the UEA emails and hacking and label them as fakes, perhaps you might want to explain in your own words why Mann et al effectively chose to and went to great lengths to effectively delete or treat as a none events both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age from his Hockey Stick hypothesis?

Perhaps you could explain in your own words how/why the so-called fraud was debunked years ago?
Or have you spotted something new in the data?
You'd have to read up a bit on it first and I've given you enough links already.
Is this your only issue or have you spotted other flaws? You don't seem to answer questions - you just ask them in a mindless rhetorical sort of way.
You have nothing to lose but ignorance itself!

 

[John Brown]

By all means seek to discredit the UEA emails and hacking and label them as fakes, perhaps you might want to explain in your own words why Mann et al effectively chose to and went to great lengths to effectively delete or treat as a none events both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age from his Hockey Stick hypothesis?

To be honest, the MWP and the LIA pale into insignificance when compared with recent changes.
Of course I'm only basing that on currently available data. I don't have access to whatever the he double hockey sticks you're looking at.

 

[ey_tony]

Perhaps you could explain in your own words how/why the so-called fraud was debunked years ago?
Have you spotted something new in the data?
You'd have to read up a bit on it first and I've given you enough links already.
Is this your only issue or have you spotted other flaws? You don't seem to answer questions - you just ask them in a mindless rhetorical sort of way.
You have nothing to lose but ignorance itself!

Well the question is simple and certainly not mindless.

As a Mann fan-boi you are very vocal as to the provenance of his Hockey Stick hypothesis therefore why do you suppose he chose to effectively leave out two significantly important events?

 

[ey_tony]

To be honest, the MWP and the LIA pale into insignificance when compared with recent changes.
Of course I'm only basing that on currently available data. I don't have access to whatever the he double hockey sticks you're looking at.

Would you care to expand on why those two events are insignificant?

 

[John Brown]

Would you care to expand on why those two events are insignificant?

Because they are the equivalent of me taking a dump in the graph of my medium term weight gain.
I've gained around a stone since last year, but my weight did drop by a couple of pounds last Thursday after a trip to the loo...

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Because they are the equivalent of me taking a dump in the graph of my medium term weight gain.
I've gained around a stone since last year, but my weight did drop by a couple of pounds last Thursday after a trip to the loo...

At least your insignificant bowel movement wasn't responsible for mass deaths, famines, wars, plagues, witch hunts and attendendent ritual murders, revolutions, complete overturn of the social order and quite possibly the industrial revolution. That's an impressive list of effects for something with as trivial an impact as a mid-week evacuation.

But I expect you are right - the little ice age is trivial, and probably only exists in the minds of climate conspiracy theorists - if Dr Mann didn't find it in a bristle cone pine, it probably never happened. I wonder why all those people died?

 

[Jacob]

Well the question is simple and certainly not mindless.

As a Mann fan-boi you are very vocal as to the provenance of his Hockey Stick hypothesis therefore why do you suppose he chose to effectively leave out two significantly important events?

If you can't be bothered to read up on the outcome of the Mann controversy there's no point in you even having an opinion.
You should also try to drop that supercilious tone it just makes you sound even more irrelevant.
At least TN (above) doesn't claim to "have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically and have degrees in Geology/Geophysics"

 

[John Brown]

At least your insignificant bowel movement wasn't responsible for mass deaths, famines, wars, plagues, witch hunts and attendendent ritual murders, revolutions, complete overturn of the social order and quite possibly the industrial revolution. That's an impressive list of effects for something with as trivial an impact as a mid-week evacuation.

But I expect you are right - the little ice age is trivial, and probably only exists in the minds of climate conspiracy theorists - if Dr Mann didn't find it in a bristle cone pine, it probably never happened. I wonder why all those people died?

I never said it was trivial, or that it didn't affect anyone. I never said it doesn't didn't exist, I merely said that from the graph of average global temperature over the centuries, it pales into insignificance besides the recent increase.

 

[ey_tony]

If you can't be bothered to read up on the outcome of the Mann controversy there's no point in you even having an opinion.
You should also try to drop that supercilious tone it just makes you sound even more irrelevant.

Pretentious tone? You've made derisory comments about me and my views on some of the questionable science held up as fact since I first posted my views. You've also been hailing Mann as the new Messiah of the Hockey Stick religion and yet you can't be bothered to look up the outcome when you've suggested it as reading material for me?
Surely you don't need to look it up as it's me according to you who is behind the times and you're the one with the up to date info?

Asking a valid question is not pretentious. making scathing comments about someone who questions the validity of science put up as fact is!

 

[Trainee neophyte]

it pales into insignificance besides the recent increase.

And yet, Europe hasn't lost a third of its population in the last 50 years. Isn't it odd? Warming is so destructive it is going to make the planet uninhabitable any day now, just not quite yet - for the moment we are all doing suprisingly well. Cooling on the other hand kills indiscriminately, even when the amount of cooling is "insignificant". I suppose the big question to ask is: just how cold is the right amount of cold? How many degrees colder do we need for the planet to bask in the perfect temperature? Have we asked Goldilocks?

 

[ey_tony]

Because they are the equivalent of me taking a dump in the graph of my medium term weight gain.
I've gained around a stone since last year, but my weight did drop by a couple of pounds last Thursday after a trip to the loo...

Well your analogy is no worse than some of the other s**t explanations I've come across, that's for sure.

 

[ey_tony]

If you can't be bothered to read up on the outcome of the Mann controversy there's no point in you even having an opinion.
You should also try to drop that supercilious tone it just makes you sound even more irrelevant.

Pretentious tone? You've made derisory comments about me and my views on some of the questionable science held up as fact since I first posted my views. You've also been hailing Mann as the new Messiah of the Hockey Stick religion and yet you can't be bothered to look up the outcome when you've suggested it as reading material for me?
Goodness me! Surely you don't need to look it up as it's me according to you who is behind the times and you're the one with the up to date info?

By the way, asking a valid question is not pretentious. Making scathing comments about someone who questions the validity of science put up as fact, is!

 

[Jacob]

Pretentious tone? You've made derisory comments about me and my views on some of the questionable science held up as fact since I first posted my views. You've also been hailing Mann as the new Messiah of the Hockey Stick religion and yet you can't be bothered to look up the outcome when you've suggested it as reading material for me?
Goodness me! Surely you don't need to look it up as it's me according to you who is behind the times and you're the one with the up to date info?

By the way, asking a valid question is not pretentious. Making scathing comments about someone who questions the validity of science put up as fact, is!

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

 

[Spectric]

This is soundling like a case of Nero playing the fiddle whilst Rome burnt, and that is also questionable because the fiddle had not yet been invented in the first century AD.

 

[ey_tony]

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

Posting links is not going to get you off the hook after you have been so scathing about me. I'll keep asking you questions like that every time you make a derisory comment about me.

Now the question remains is: why do you suppose an eminent academic such as Mann whom you obviously hold in high regard, thought it necessary to leave out the glaring anomalies of the MWP and LIA? You're obviously familiar with his work so it will be interesting to see your take on it!

 

[Jacob]

Posting links is not going to get you off the hook after you have been so scathing about me. I'll keep asking you questions like that every time you make a derisory comment about me.

Now the question remains is: why do you suppose an eminent academic such as Mann whom you obviously hold in high regard, thought it necessary to leave out the glaring anomalies of the MWP and LIA? You're obviously familiar with his work so it will be interesting to see your take on it!

It's a poser who to believe!
Scientific American? New Scientist? 99% of the world's scientists?
Or a supercilious geezer on a woodwork group who nobody has ever heard of and obviously hasn't read a lot on the subject?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/earth-day-and-the-hockey-stick-a-singular-message/https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars-Dispatches/dp/0231152558/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_and_the_Climate_Warshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...climate-wars/2012/05/25/gJQAIYzQqU_story.html

 

[Droogs]

Perhaps he left them out as the MWP has not been fully agreed upon to be regarded as in fact having truly happened as there is nowhere near enough consencous on the evidence for it. The LIA was possibly left out as the general agreement is that is was an abberation caused by a particularly violent but short lived period of vulcanosity in the SW Pacific and had no overall lasting or appreciable effect on the longterm numbers. Could be wrong could be right. But the LIA was definitely a shortlived blip the driver of which was dust particles in the upper atomospere not greenhouse gases

 

[ey_tony]

It's a poser who to believe! Scientific American? New Scientist?
Or some geezer on a woodwork group who nobody has ever heard of and obviously hasn't done a lot of reading?

Well you see I'm asking a geezer of a woodwork forum who has done a lot of reading in order to be enlightened.
I'll repeat the question....Why did Mann et al, leave out those two important factors when he devised his hockey stick hypothesis?

 

[ey_tony]

Perhaps he left them out as the MWP has not been fully agreed upon to be regarded as in fact having truly happened as there is nowhere near enough consencous on the evidence for it. The LIA was possibly left out as the general agreement is that is was an abberation caused by a particularly violent but short lived period of vulcanosity in the SW Pacific and had no overall lasting or appreciable effect on the longterm numbers. Could be wrong could be right. But the LIA was definitely a shortlived blip the driver of which was dust particles in the upper atomospere not greenhouse gases

At least a reasoned and measured reply.
However, I wouldn't call either of them a blip. They've been played down by those who support Mann but many others don't agree.