Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Grizzly 45

If you want a polluter that pushes Ireland's entire vehicle emissions into the "frankly nothing " category.
Send off a 350,000 tonne oil tanker or cargo container ship on a trip to the Middle East or China from Europe and the US burning one of the crudest and dirtiest oil product...Bunker fuel oil!!!
One of those monsters on a round trip burns and creates more pollution in emissions than Ireland does with our cars in a single trip.
So heres the rub,how do we get our cheap shte from China and our diesel and petrol from the Middle East without those ships,of which there are hundreds underway globally 365 a year. We can stop ordering stuff from China and reduce the shipping and pay more for them being made back in the West. or we keep virtue signalling demanding we all drive a technological cul de sac in the future,that auses more pollution mining lithium for its batteries,and trying to power our lives with giant bird mincers,while letting behemonths sail our seas bringing us cheap stuff?

As for doomsday scenarios that never happened predicted by "scientists". Heres 50 of them.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes )
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

If you want a polluter that pushes Ireland's entire vehicle emissions into the "frankly nothing " category.
Send off a 350,000 tonne oil tanker or cargo container ship on a trip to the Middle East or China from Europe and the US burning one of the crudest and dirtiest oil product...Bunker fuel oil!!!
One of those monsters on a round trip burns and creates more pollution in emissions than Ireland does with our cars in a single trip.
So heres the rub,how do we get our cheap shte from China and our diesel and petrol from the Middle East without those ships,of which there are hundreds underway globally 365 a year. We can stop ordering stuff from China and reduce the shipping and pay more for them being made back in the West. or we keep virtue signalling demanding we all drive a technological cul de sac in the future,that auses more pollution mining lithium for its batteries,and trying to power our lives with giant bird mincers,while letting behemonths sail our seas bringing us cheap stuff?

As for doomsday scenarios that never happened predicted by "scientists". Heres 50 of them.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes )
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Give it time Grizz, give it time.

Mellor

Gris, most of not all of those are headlines from newspapers, not predictions from scientific community.
A two second google indicates it’s from Breitbart, and was debunked.

Look at all the nonsense that’s printed today. Imagine that being held up as popular opinion in 50 years.

For example, the Killer bees one. Not really a climate thing. But it was real. Honey bees and African bees made a hybrid more aggressive bee. Buts that it. No big deal.
Not a super deadly poisonous bee from the movies that the paper suggest.

Didn’t the same thing happen this year with murder hornets?

tudderone

We have black caucasian Duchess Meagain Merkel and her cuck husband, riding around in 7 litre Cadillac SUV's, and making endless use of Elton John's private jet, lecturing us about, amongst other things, climate change. This is in the Al Gore mould. Do as i say, not as i do.

I know the UK was reckoned to be responsible for 0.20% of the worlds co2, our population is one thirteenth of theirs, so 1/13th of their co2 ? So that would be 0.015 % ? And because of that we have had to subject ourselves to levy's and charges, and other nonsense, because Leonora wants to virtue signal in front of the UN in New York.


Cobblers to the lot of it.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Gris, most of not all of those are headlines from newspapers, not predictions from scientific community.
A two second google indicates it’s from Breitbart, and was debunked.

Look at all the nonsense that’s printed today. Imagine that being held up as popular opinion in 50 years.

For example, the Killer bees one. Not really a climate thing. But it was real. Honey bees and African bees made a hybrid more aggressive bee. Buts that it. No big deal.
Not a super deadly poisonous bee from the movies that the paper suggest.

Didn’t the same thing happen this year with murder hornets?

I beg to differ.The 70s when I grew up in there was this Ice age ,over pouplation,end of resources,were being touted by the "scientific community" enmasse. But lets just do the sums here since climate emergency has been around as long as I have been,and obviously pouplated with people upposedly alot smarter than I will be...WHY has Not one,single,prediction,hysteronic headlines notwithstanding,come true in the last 54 years? IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM!! if these people were in any other profession,they would be fired for gross incompetence

OR is it as we saw in the inconvient fact of "climategate" that scientists are just as suspectible to produce junk science if their pet pork barrel project is about to recive a rich donation if they produce the desired results needed for someones agenda? Or possibly some of these professors and scientists just dont have the qualifications to opine a valid opinion on the subject,as we saw in Ireland in the Extinction Rebellion signitories from UCD and Trinity.
Didnt know a professor in " Jazz and modern music studies" makes one a climate expert or "modern feminism" sure beats any athmospherists opinion.

Indeed you are right ...Hopefully in 50 years time we will indeed be proably laughing at the fact in the age of hysteria we were listening to a hysterical Swedish teenager with no qualifications whatsoever, with learning difficulties lambast the world from the UN and were taken in by a failed US politican who produced two propaganda films, claimed that parts of the world where he later bought two million dollar plus beach houses would be underwater. But somehow I doubt it,as there will alawys be money to be made in fear off the gulliable.

yubabill

Took me ages to find this article I recently heard about - buried under a ton of eco-fluff and spin;

Germany is going back to coal since deciding to phase out nuclear, it's just opened a new coal plant. And I also heard that they are increasingly burning brown coal, which is really bad for air quality (and I make the distinction between air quality and CO2 bumpf).

https://www.ft.com/content/9c3228f3-d22c-4da6-9417-8fb29dcbfda4

Grizzly 45

Not to mind a virtue signalling Swedish teenager with Aspergers, going on her way across the Atlantic in a Monacco princes sail boat that is made from the most expensive and totally unrecyclable materials namely Carbon fibre that costs over 3 million euros with a crew,that then has to be flown home to Monacco, and then BACK again to sail the damn boat home from the USA.All first class too if you don't mind! Total for this little PR lark over 1.5 million dollars,and somthing like 350 metric tonnes per person carbon footprint.:D:D:D:D:D
Own goal springs to mind.

Grizzly 45

yubabill wrote: »

Took me ages to find this article I recently heard about - buried under a ton of eco-fluff and spin;

Germany is going back to coal since deciding to phase out nuclear, it's just opened a new coal plant. And I also heard that they are increasingly burning brown coal, which is really bad for air quality (and I make the distinction between air quality and CO2 bumpf).

https://www.ft.com/content/9c3228f3-d22c-4da6-9417-8fb29dcbfda4

Hidden behind a subscription paywall

Yip...if you want to see a utter disaster of the green energy in action Germany is it. In optimal conditions of a sunny day and 90% wind over the country in 2016? Germany just managed to just produce 48% of its energy by green methods that day.Thats now despite having almost every roof under solar panels and just about on every flat bit of ground and mole hill fields of giant bird slicers.

Ask Thyssen/Krupp about how good this green energy is when you are going to smelt and pour 10 tons of high tensile steel,and the wind stops blowing,and your liquid steel starts to cool in the crucible thats electrialy heated and solidifies!:eek:

And we wont mention the latest new green thing to hit Ireland soon on the farm,that Germans are getting second thoughts about.Bio gas plants on cattle and pig farms.A few of them have exploded and killed one or two people,not to mind throwing literally a few million litres of slurry into the enviroment and damaging the groudwater.

The unerecycleable windmills are being another headache.As the blades are made of fibre glass and cant be recycled are ending up now...in landfills!!! they cost 2 million euros to decomission and have a working life of about 10/15 years.Thats not when they are slaughtering rare raptors like the red kite,golden eagles,buzzards, goshawks,falcons, bats,and everything else on the German endangerd species list that flies.

End result,you cant power a modern industrial nation like Germany with windmills and solar panels. So if it doesn't work there,what are the chances of it working here in Ireland??:rolleyes:

tudderone

Don't forget Putin having the Germans by the short and curlies, supplying them with gas. Merkel does anything to piddle off old vlad, like questioning why all his enemies drink glow in the dark tea, and the gas stops.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I beg to differ.The 70s when I grew up in there was this Ice age ,over pouplation,end of resources,were being touted by the "scientific community" enmasse. But lets just do the sums here since climate emergency has been around as long as I have been,and obviously pouplated with people upposedly alot smarter than I will be...WHY has Not one,single,prediction,hysteronic headlines notwithstanding,come true in the last 54 years? IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM!! if these people were in any other profession,they would be fired for gross incompetence

Enmasse predictions of global cooling in the 70s? No that's debunked.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

The was a slight dip of temp in the 70s, and some people proclaimed there was an ice age coming. There's always going to be contrary scientists. The papers run with it. It's a media prediction, not a science based one.
All of those "claims" you've quoted are headlines, not papers.

How often do you see a "study" referenced in a rag that says, Alsohol causes cancer. Then next month, "alcohol slows cancer".
Look at any topic, and you'll conflicting opinions published. A published opinion doesn't mean its accepted.
Most of the time, they've interpreted the results very selective in order to grab a shocking headline.

I'm also not sure where you got the idea that none of the scientific predictions, just because InfoWars or some other lunatic says that doesn't make it true.


Simple example. Ozone depletion was predicted in the 70s. (it's on your list)
That prediction came true. That's not really debatable.
The levels in the ozone layer plummet in the 80s and early 90s. That was the big issue I remember growing up.

But we banned depleting gases, CFCs, developed new refrigerants etc. We just found a way to achieve the goal without them. And it's no longer happening, Ozone layer is back to 1990s level. We aren't going to start using old tech, so it's not an issues. Same way we aren't going to suddenly start using asbestos again.

That's how it works. An issue is identified, and we act to so that it doesn't eventuate. It's a bit silly to use a successful invention as evidence that the issue didn't exist.

yubabill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hidden behind a subscription paywall

Apologies, the link brought me to paywall, too, though I was originally reading the article.

Article url seems to go to paywall prompt.

Maybe putting the headline/byline into your search engine? seemed to work for me, but no guarantee;

"Environmentalists on back foot as Germany’s newest coal plant opens

Coronavirus and possible recession heap challenges on fight against fossil fuel lobby"

Coal plant is called Datteln 4 and article is dated June 8, 2020. Author is Erika Solomon.

yubabill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hidden behind a subscription paywall


End result,you cant power a modern industrial nation like Germany with windmills and solar panels. So if it doesn't work there,what are the chances of it working here in Ireland??:rolleyes:

And while searching deep for the FT article above, I read another which mentions that the 2020 auction of German onshore wind contracts was undersubscribed by almost half;

https://www.power-technology.com/news/germany-brown-coal-lignite-parliement-compensation-onshore-wind-auction/

Grizzly 45

Yup the Danes are getting out of wind farms too. They were in the utter farcical situation of having to import from Norway hydroelectric power on their wind free days.Then sell back at below cost their green produced power to Norway .

My question would be for Ireland...If "wind energy" is producing over 50% of our energy on any given day according to Eirtricity and ESB...Why dont you put a website up with a Energy meter showing us public when and where this is being produced in Ireland?Surely that would convince us skeptics ???

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yup the Danes are getting out of wind farms too. They were in the utter farcical situation of having to import from Norway hydroelectric power on their wind free days.Then sell back at below cost their green produced power to Norway .

My question would be for Ireland...If "wind energy" is producing over 50% of our energy on any given day according to Eirtricity and ESB...Why dont you put a website up with a Energy meter showing us public when and where this is being produced in Ireland?Surely that would convince us skeptics ???

I have heard that wind will never be a truly efficient supplier of electricity, way less than 10% of whats needed. If it were so good, why does it need to be so heavily subsidised ?

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Enmasse predictions of global cooling in the 70s? No that's debunked.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

The was a slight dip of temp in the 70s, and some people proclaimed there was an ice age coming. There's always going to be contrary scientists. The papers run with it. It's a media prediction, not a science based one.
All of those "claims" you've quoted are headlines, not papers.

How often do you see a "study" referenced in a rag that says, Alsohol causes cancer. Then next month, "alcohol slows cancer".
Look at any topic, and you'll conflicting opinions published. A published opinion doesn't mean its accepted.
Most of the time, they've interpreted the results very selective in order to grab a shocking headline.

I'm also not sure where you got the idea that none of the scientific predictions, just because InfoWars or some other lunatic says that doesn't make it true.


Simple example. Ozone depletion was predicted in the 70s. (it's on your list)
That prediction came true. That's not really debatable.
The levels in the ozone layer plummet in the 80s and early 90s. That was the big issue I remember growing up.

But we banned depleting gases, CFCs, developed new refrigerants etc. We just found a way to achieve the goal without them. And it's no longer happening, Ozone layer is back to 1990s level. We aren't going to start using old tech, so it's not an issues. Same way we aren't going to suddenly start using asbestos again.

That's how it works. An issue is identified, and we act to so that it doesn't eventuate. It's a bit silly to use a successful invention as evidence that the issue didn't exist.

And..It still does not explain why not one SINGLE prediction of these "scientists" has not come true??? Even the ozone hole has been debunked as it is growing smaller,and even the scientists cant explain is it a natural phnemonen or was excasberated by mankind?

You can dress it up anyway you want,but science has fallen to the god of Mammon and politics and agendas too.Especially when they are literally caught with both hands ,feet and head in the cookie jars of "climategate."

The dirty secret of the Climate warming alarmists has been that they have been doctoring and ignoring inconvient facts to suit their agenda for decades. Like their debunked hockey stick graph,and thir studious ignoring of mediveal warm period. Just because you have a few letters after your name doesnt make you less suspectible to to greed or idealism.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

I have heard that wind will never be a truly efficient supplier of electricity, way less than 10% of whats needed. If it were so good, why does it need to be so heavily subsidised ?

Where this stuff will work,is on small scales,like powering your house,farm,village maybe..Not on this idea of a "big factory complex" powering cities.Well until we figure out how to store electricity enmass and cheaply. But giving people true power independence??What are you thinking of???:rolleyes:

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And..It still does not explain why not one SINGLE prediction of these "scientists" has not come true??? Even the ozone hole has been debunked as it is growing smaller,and even the scientists cant explain is it a natural phnemonen or was excasberated by mankind?

I literally just gave you an example of one that cane? Depletion of the ozone occurred through the late 70s,80s and early 90s
It is growing smaller now because we stopped using the CFCs. That is not remotely difficult to understand. So I assume you trolling at this point.

Grizzly 45

The fact seems seems to escape you is that 1) I dont agree with your example of that being sorted by mankind as it is still inexplicable as whether it is a natural phenomen or caused or exacerbated by mankind.
2) I dont troll,and resent the accusation or suggestion .I expect better from you than a millennial snowflake accusation.

3)Did it affect humanity in any great way as predicted by the "scientists"and the perpetual "We're all gonna DIE!!"crowd?

4)Please explain how a lighter than air gas once released into the athmosphere manages to make it's way in sufficient mass in a period of possibly what 60 years of use since we invented the spray can to one geographical point on the planet,and then hang around there for decades to burn a hole in the ozone?

Mellor

1) It’s really not inexplicable. The science is quite widely understood. If you refuse to believe it, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just like people are entitled to believe the moon landing was fake.

2) I’m not sure what trolling has to do with millennials. Though, I’d expect it offends the snowflakes, like everything else.

3) The extremist headlines are written by journalists, not scientists. It’s generally a good idea not to take headlines at face value.
But CFC’s were banned, what? 30 years ago. If we did nothing it would have been much worse. How much worse, who knows for sure without a time machine or crystal ball.

4) All gases mix in the atmosphere due to currents. Light gases like hydrogen, or heavy gases like carbon dioxide or ozone (heavy oxygen). Air itself is a mix of gases.
Two big misconnections there too. Firstly CFC don’t congregate in one spot, it wasn’t thinning in one spot. The amount reduced all over, but the ozone layer wasn’t a uniform thickness to begin with.
Secondly, they don’t need to hang around for decades. We were continually pumping them out for decades. Then we reduced. We’ve got to the point that ozone creation exceeds depletion.
I really don’t see what’s controversial about that. It’s quite simple.

tudderone

Don't worry folks, we Europeans can be as dirty and polluting all we like as long as there are unfortunate poor asian countries, with zero workers rights, no PPE, very low wages, no environmental standards, and where the dead and injured mysteriously disappear in the dead of night, never to be seen again, to do it in.

Quote "An environmental disaster".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jdEG_ACXLw

Birdnuts

Mellor wrote: »

1) It’s really not inexplicable. The science is quite widely understood. If you refuse to believe it, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just like people are entitled to believe the moon landing was fake.

.

Here is some actual science which shows that large scale warming of the Arctic has occurred on a significant scale several times in the last 100k years - and all very natural

"A 2015 study of DNA from subfossil gray whales indicated that this may not be a historically unique event. That study suggested that over the past 100,000 years there have been several migrations of gray whales between the Pacific and Atlantic, with the most recent large scale migration of this sort occurring about 5000 years ago. These migrations corresponded to times of relatively high temperatures in the Arctic Ocean.

Taken from https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/43892

Mellor

Birdnuts wrote: »

Here is some actual science which shows that large scale warming of the Arctic has occurred on a significant scale several times in the last 100k years - and all very natural]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the ozone layer. So I’m not sure what you quoting that for.


Lots of data shows that temperature fluctuations have for millennia. What do you think the ice age was? The issue is the rate not the chance there is change. Although natural change could present many of the same issues.
I’m not going to post more on this guys. There’s a dedicate forum for discussing it.

Birdnuts

Mellor wrote: »

That has absolutely nothing to do with the ozone layer. So I’m not sure what you quoting that for.


Lots of data shows that temperature fluctuations have for millennia. What do you think the ice age was? The issue is the rate not the chance there is change. Although natural change could present many of the same issues.
I’m not going to post more on this guys. There’s a dedicate forum for discussing it.

I was talking about climate change not the Ozone layer - studies from Greenland show far more rapid temp fluctuations at the end of the last ice-age then anything we have seen in the past 100 years

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/

"One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C (Huber et al. 2006). Furthermore, the cooling occurred much more gradually, giving these events a saw-tooth shape in climate records from most of the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 1)."

Mellor

Birdnuts wrote: »

I was talking about climate change not the Ozone layer - studies from Greenland show far more rapid temp fluctuations at the end of the last ice-age then anything we have seen in the past 100 years

I'm familiar with the Greenland data. The difference is they are regional changes, localized to certain area. It's close to the artic, so it's pretty easy to imagine how ice caps melting, affecting the ocean could quickly affect sub artic regions.
The concern with global warming is it appears to be uniform increase.
You still haven't posted these claims for the Sahel, so there's not much point continuing the back and forth topic switching. We aren't goign to change any opinions, and I doubt either of us really care whether we do or not.

Birdnuts

Mellor wrote: »

Birdnuts wrote: »

I was talking about climate change not the Ozone layer - studies from Greenland show far more rapid temp fluctuations at the end of the last ice-age then anything we have seen in the past 100 years

I'm familiar with the Greenland data. The difference is they are regional changes, localized to certain area. It's close to the artic, so it's pretty easy to imagine how ice caps melting, affecting the ocean could quickly affect sub artic regions.
The concern with global warming is it appears to be uniform increase.
You still haven't posted these claims for the Sahel, so there's not much point continuing the back and forth topic switching. We aren't goign to change any opinions, and I doubt either of us really care whether we do or not.

According to the alarmists the warming is most prevalent in the popular regions:rolleyes:

I already posted links highlighting the Greening of the Sahel - and would you know it, theres bumper rains there again this rainy season:)

Rows Grower

Birdnuts wrote: »

Mellor wrote: »

Birdnuts wrote: »

I was talking about climate change not the Ozone layer - studies from Greenland show far more rapid temp fluctuations at the end of the last ice-age then anything we have seen in the past 100 years

According to the alarmists the warming is most prevalent in the popular regions:rolleyes:

I already posted links highlighting the Greening of the Sahel - and would you know it, theres bumper rains there again this rainy season:)

Birdnuts, do me one favour and just let this chap off please.

He'll probably end up arguing with himself anyway but with God's holy help he'll do it by PM.

Mellor

Birdnuts wrote: »

I already posted links highlighting the Greening of the Sahel - and would you know it, theres bumper rains there again this rainy season:)

Which is what the was predicted in the link I posted.
My original question was where there the predictions that claimed the opposite? If they aren't any, then we are in agreement.

Rows Grower wrote:

Birdnuts, do me one favour and just let this chap off please.

He'll probably end up arguing with himself anyway but with God's holy help he'll do it by PM.

It's good to have your opinions inspected by debate from time to time.
Birdnuts is a smart lad and knows that. Unlike the droolers on arfter hours and the like, you know the type.

Rows Grower

Mellor wrote: »

Which is what the was predicted in the link I posted.
My original question was where there the predictions that claimed the opposite? If they aren't any, then we are in agreement.


It's good to have your opinions inspected by debate from time to time.
Birdnuts is a smart lad and knows that. Unlike the droolers on arfter hours and the like, you know the type.

Break it down Nostradamus.

Actually, don't bother.

Mellor

Rows Grower wrote: »

Break it down Nostradamus.

It was plain english champ. I don't think any one had any difficulty understanding it. If you couldn't, that's a you problem.
But this isn't climate forum or the conspiracy forum. Lighten up a little.

Cass

Alright boys and girls,

Lets keep it civil because this "friendly" back and forth can turn nasty very quickly as soon as someone takes offence.