Algeria

Man the Lefties must be besides themselves today as to what has happened in Algeria.

The planet is getting so hot that SNOW once again blanketed the Sahara desert after recent snow in 2017, 2018 and now this year.

That proves once again that we are melting away under the GLOBAL WARMING caused by the Left Political agenda.

By the way this year in the Vancouver, and the British Columbia region we had record snow levels during the Christmas season and New Year.

Must admit that with snow covering everything it does add to the Christmas spirit.

Walking on the trails around the lakes make for a beautiful site and a most refreshing outing with the snow, ending with a great meal consisting of Pap and Boere with a light curry tang of onion and tomato gravy.

But unlike you folks in SA our problems are easily corrected with a shovel and ice melt.

Sorry Lefties.

So based on your logic of one instance proves the point, the record high temperatures reached in Canada recently must prove that global warming is real then

Cherry picking is alive and well with the stupid ones on here   I see.

Unfortunately you reading ability is about as good as your knowledge of low and high temperatures.

In Algeria they have had snow in the Sahara desert in 2017, 2018 and over the 2021-2022 festive season that is due to low temperatures.

This Algerian Sahara desert is the desert that has the highest hot temperatures on average per year since before New Zealand was infested.

Over a period spanning six years....take note.

In British Columbia (BC) my posting was about record snow over the festive season which does not occur during periods of high temperatures.

We get snow each and every year around BC. 

During summer in Canada we do get high temperatures for a few weeks mid summer each and every year even prior to gas automobiles being invented.

Suggest you apply to get your school fees back Crusty and stop taking that medication it ain't helping.

Sharktwat that photo of you at your desk is priceless.

Please to see that your know how to do research on the computer other than porno.

Twats.

Definitely time to limit the sun…..it’s almost certainly involved in global warming. 97% of all scientists have concluded that if we rely on moon power, global warming might be held to less than a degree by 2400.

A limited experiment deploying a vast umbrella in space deflecting sun rays in the direction of Uranus is now in the Biden Build Back Better proposals. It’s costly but it could be offset by food production on that planet, which will  help to feed the hungry and the homeless.

In the meantime the consensus that all global temperature stations that haven’t reported increased temperatures for 2 years in a row need to be replaced is winning considerable support. The science shows this can’t be happening and so clearly something is amiss.

Reuters reports  a proposal to measure temperatures on floating stations that maneuver away from cold waves was cleverly defeated by the 3% who pointed out it would add 3 degrees to global warming….thus eliminating all private jet flights under the Djibouti accord.

News from China is generally positive. They have expanded battery production substantially to support the West’s urgent efforts to switch to electric cars. To achieve this ramp up in production they are opening 15 new coal fueled power stations. Not necessarily good in itself, but all part of the bigger picture.

Studies now show the smallest EVs sipping electricity from hydro electric sources drop below ICE  carbon production at 50% of a car’s  life. And all aberrant studies that then show the same only happens at double a car’s life for the electricity guzzling EVs now being built….have been discredited in a journal supported by 97% of all scientists and the House Painters Union.

The war on tea kettles continues apace, although tea producing countries are now objecting. As a result gas heated kettles have been exempted from the rules that have created  “Second Abolition” conditions in England. The black market for warm tea remains strong.

Meanwhile reports of windmill worship are being received in many developing countries. 97% of all scientists are sanguine, believing it shows a healthy acceptance of the new reality.

"97% of scientists think global warming is real.. Are they all bribed by globalist communists?"

BS!

1. What kind of scientists are they?
2. Who are they, what are their credentials?
3. Have t hey got anything more than loose hypothesis? Where are their calculations.
4. Does their calculations concur with physics?
5. Why haven't I ever seen a proper scientific calculation quoting the physics?
6. Why are climate scientists allowed to change the goalposts everytime their predictions are wrong?
7. Have even one climate scientists incorporated and explained historical climate fluctuation into their models? Can they tell us how the climate fluctuated that much without the human influence? Can they back it up with actual calculations, or are they BSing for funding without the hard numbers backing them up?
8. Show me only one actual physics calc.
9. Show me one actual physicist buying into this.
10. "Climate Change " falls under Geography...a social science...you know, science without actual calculations...get a badge for participation...

Nasa has no physicists? 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

In Brief:

A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that human activities are the primary cause of the observed climate-warming trend over the past century.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• American Association for the Advancement of Science

  "Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

• American Chemical Society

  "The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

• American Geophysical Union

  "Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5

• American Medical Association

  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6

• American Meteorological Society

  "Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7

• American Physical Society

  "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8

• The Geological Society of America

  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

Steve Hawkins is the most renowned physicist of the 21 century...

https://www.climateaction.org/news/stephen-hawking-next-time-you-meet-a-climate-denier-tell-them-to-take-trip

https://carbonliteracy.com/stephen-hawkings-outlook-on-climate-change/

NASA is an organization with no purpose since Musk and others have privatized space travel….so they leapt onto global warming. Look at the motivation and you can predict the outcome.

"Nasa has no physicists? "

They've got plenty, but they aren't sharing it with us plebs....show it to me.

Hawkins the top physicist of the 20th century….not even close. Have you heard of Albert Einstein?

Hawkins was a biologist...clouded his judgement with his ideology knew jack shit about physics...Atheist first, scientists second...clouded judgement...prejudiced poephol...next!

I said the 21st century... (so far at least).  Perhaps the best since Einstein, or Danie Gerber..

Hawking was a physics, not a biologist. Just because you don't agree with his ideology, it does not mean his science is wrong. 

Stephen Hawking

Description

I am not convinced to what degree global warming is a threat, but I certainly would not write off someone who is the expert in their field, and much smarter than me. 

As someone outside this field of expertise, I can only understand the layman's terms and the numbers. Just like I cant create a vaccine for Covid. Nor can I assess the risk of the vaccine - other than relying on historical data published in the media. (e.g. Death rate of vaccinated vs unvaccinated). 

Just because ABC could be corrupt, this does not prove it. 

The idea that all scientists are part of a communist globalist conspiracy to lie to the public is too far-fetched, and getting into the Beeno reality. 

Why would 97% of mechanics say that XYZ is true, if they knew it was not. 

You know Hawkins and Hawking are 2 different people?

Edit, Should be Dawkins...there is no Hawkins in science.

Not your elbow from your arse...Stephen Hawking was the physicist...Hawkins was your Atheist buddy.

Edit should be Dawkins

Hawking is "not my elbow from my arse"... For once I agree with you.
My arse does not have an elbow, and Hawking is not my elbow either. 

Hawking managed to convince the public that his opinion always mattered. "[H]is comments attracted exaggerated attention even on topics where he had no special expertise," wrote Martin Rees, a close friend and colleague of his, "for instance philosophy, or the dangers from aliens or from intelligent machines." His overweening confidence—and his stubbornness—cost him respect from many of his colleagues, especially late in his career.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of Hawking's transformation into a celebrity, however, was entangled with his disability. Just as he began to make himself known on the physics circuit, his disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease) began to bite. Hawking always suspected that his quick rise through the physics ranks, his early awards, his appointment to the Royal Society at the tender age of 32—even his appointment to the Lucasian chair that Isaac Newton held several centuries before him—all resulted from his disability rather than his physics prowess. “I think I was appointed as a stopgap to fill the chair as someone whose work would not disgrace the standards expected of the Lucasian chair, but I think they thought I wouldn’t live very long, and then they could choose again, by which time they could find a more suitable candidate,” he once told an interviewer. “Well, I’m sorry to disappoint the electors.”

As much as this doubt nagged at Hawking throughout his life—he truly wanted to be recognized for his science rather than for his perserverance in the face of disability—Hawking realized that his celebrity, if not his physics, was founded on the latter as much as the former. It disturbed him that his outsized reputation was due to the caricature of him a disabled genius—that he was viewed as a seer gifted with extraordinary insight in compensation for a bodily incapacity. But at the same time, he embraced it and even helped build the myth to increase his renown.

‘Outsized reputation’…kinda says it all. Another topic on which he had ‘no special expertise’….global warming.

Well here’s a comprehensive list of the leading physicists….no Hawking.

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/landau-genius-scale-ranking-of-the-smartest-physicists-ever/

"Dawkins is not a scientist."

Never said that...I said his aggressive atheism clouded his judgement...to try and disprove something is not scientific...nothing wrong with his science, it's when he started venturing into religion he left his science at the door.

But back to topic...where's the physics models for this?...all I see conjecture.

BTW, I believe that the climate is changing and that humans probably have a huge impact, I just reject the BS solutions being presented as science...climate politics is an even bigger hoax than the covid politics...Oil is at $88 a barrel and the world isn't using a drop lrss than a year ago, we're just paying double for it.

Geography and History are bundled together as Social Sciences at school...hence my social science joke...I know very well that hydrology and meteorology is also part of Geography and that it's hard science...it's even part of the civil engineering curriculum...

"Hawking is "not my elbow from my arse"... For once I agree with you.

https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-predict-mini-ice-age-could-hit-uk-by-2030-11186098

I see the UK are now saying that things might swing back to mini ice age in the UK by 2030.

Imagine that, an ice age amidst global warming.

Anecdotal, no doubt.

The sun is the new enemy, you heard it here first.

The UK said no such thing. The article linked to work conducted by a single maths professor Valentina Zharkova and her team at Northumbria University. She does not represent the UK's governments position on climate change or represent the UK scientific community consensus view on climate change.

As for the now part of your claim, the article is over 4 years old. Incidentally the very same maths professors who's work the article you linked too refers  also made the same claim back in 2015.

You have also conflated mini ice-age and ice age. A full on ice age would see a temperature drop between 8 and 16 greater than a mini ice age. 

As for the validity of the model the article sites, other solar scientists have issues with it, claiming it to be too simple, only based on 35 years worth of data and most importantly failing to accurately reproduce past solar activity. While Zharkova has been able to get her work published in peer reviewed scientific journals, she has something of a credibility problem in that she has referenced long debunked myths about global warming on Mars and Jupiter.

When it comes to global warming, climate scientists have long since investigated the sun as a possible cause of it. Solar activity cannot be the driver of the current period of warming because its actually been in decline during the period of rising temperatures.

So no the sun is not the enemy. 

97% of all scientists think you anecdotally conflated the whole thing Plum. Making you a denier….you naughty boy. But there’s this:

Now, an international team of researchers led by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory at the University of Oulu, Finland, may have the answer. They examined meteorites that had fallen to Earth over the past 240 years. By analyzing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun's radioactive output during the 20th century.

Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.

………..

So we have massive increases in solar activity since the IR. But somehow it isn’t implicated in the 1.2 degree temperature increase. So according to the believers, the sun plays no role in keeping us warm. You couldn’t write this in a kid’s fairy tale book.

Love the way you omitted the part of the article where Ilya Usoksin is quoted

""During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures,""

Here is another quote from him

'There was quite an agreement between solar activity and rising temperatures into the 1970s. However, then solar activity declined, or stayed the same, but the temperatures on Earth continued to rise. So you cannot say that it is only a solar effect,'

So according to the believers, the sun plays no role in keeping us warm. You couldn’t write this in a kid’s fairy tale book.

Yawn, so after a classic cherry pick, we get yet more  "believers" nonsense, desperately trying to bring the other side down to you level. And yet another strawman. Utterly predictable stuff.  As for kid's fairy tales, you're one to talk, you keep making posts about localised and short term cold weather events thinking its a compelling argument when its so ridiculously easy to refute by the simple and unescapable fact that we have temperature measurements taken from around the world 365 days a year and they show the planet is warming.

I've never come across a person so utterly convinced of their intelligence and so utterly smug about it, yet is actually so utterly utterly clueless. Wait I tell a lie...Jacob Rees-Mogg is that you?

Oh I don’t say it’s only solar effect. But everything that happened before 1950 is solar effect…..and that’s half the increase.

The other half since 1950 probably still contains some solar effect…..solar activity was still above the level that creates constant temperatures, even if down from it’s peak

The other three explanations are:

1. Some effect from the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. The heat island effect of measures taken in major cities

3. The temperature numbers are a consensus. Not like a  measure taken in one place over time. Many, many changes have been made to the algorithm. And crucially since 1985 there has been a consensus that the earth is warming….is it likely that consensus informed  the other consensus? 

Net of all this is in a massive ramp up of CO2 over 70 years we have a 1.2 degree increase….at least half of which wasn’t due to CO2. Storm in a tea cup.

Another way to look at this is we have used roughly 1.3 trillion barrels of oil to date and have only 1.6 trillion left in proven reserves. Using the 1.3 trillion has produced a maximum of  0.6 degrees of warming . So if we used all the known oil we could expect maybe another 0.7 degrees of temperature increase.

That’s assuming all these relationships hold.

Which of course is why the ‘science’ has to invent all sorts of feedback loops to amplify history. Whereas the reverse is probably true.

Probably less than 0.7 degrees then, within the range of annual variation. Storm in a tea cup.

Let’s say the sun surface temp increases and stabilises at a new high. How long would it take for earth to settle at its new temperature? A day, week, month year, decade or decades? My guess is that the lower the sun’s new high is, the more gradual and slow the earth’s correlated heating to it’s new high average temperature would be.

I like the way you have gone from linking to an article (which you admit you didn't read) about how temperatures on earth are going to start dropping from 2021 due to decreased solar activity due to start the same year, leading to the River Thames freezing within 10 years a process that's close to being an instantaneous change where earths temperature is in lock with solar activity, to posting a comment where your guessing that maybe there is a delay of between 40-50 years for the earth to adjust its temperature upwards to match the higher stabilized levels of solar activity that became the norm in the 1970's. Also care to explain if that's the case, why the temperature rise on earth is accelerating?

Plum, I know you believe you are a free thinker, a skeptic (not using the term in derogatory way) that has open mind who is not afraid to challenged the established norm and ask fair questions and someone who is capable of examining evidence impartially and come to their own conclusions free of herd think but do you not realise what you're doing here.

You posted a link that you thought supported your argument but didn't actually read it, if you did you would realise even if the models turn out to be true, it doesn't mean man made global warming isn't occurring but merely another factor could override it and at that it would only be a temporary thing, which even the people behind the model admit to . The mark of a true skeptic is that you apply skepticism to both sides of the argument equally. You only seem capable of applying it to the those who support man made climate change, never the other way around. A quick check online would of shown solar scientists have found significant issues with the work the article relates too.

When I pointed out the problem with the claim the sun is the driver of the current temperature increases on earth, I.E solar activity has been stable or in decline during the last couple of decades, you basically went and made up a reason in your head to explain it. Climate science and science is not done via guess work. Do you really think climate scientists haven't considered the sun as factor or are unaware how long it takes for changes in solar activity to affect the earth.

Incidentally/fun fact in relation to frying eggs without a stove. You can already do that in Death Valley by putting them in a skillet and leaving them out to fry in the sun alone, but I'm pretty sure you could do that for a long time already irrespective of global warming.

Yes, Stav, ButtPlug likes to present himself as the objective, but he is clearly too emotional to be impartial. His bias is always to question the official story with the alternate one- while only being "objective" when it suits what he "wants" to believe. 

But we still have no answers to these basic data points…..half of the temperature increase occurred before CO2 had changed significantly. This amount’s to a paltry 0.6 degrees, if we can even believe that with all the manipulation of readings 

And 45% of known oil has been used. The clear implication is we can expect another 0.7 degrees if we use all the oil as wastefully as we have already.

But of course that will never happen because the price of oil will soar as we get to the last 20% of reserves and the market will do what politicians can’t, create alternatives, including nuclear. Slow accumulation of physical uranium is a long term winning investment strategy.

But we still have no answers to these basic data points…..half of the temperature increase occurred before CO2 had changed significantly.

You have been given the answers, you just don't want to listen.

SB

NASA predicted that today would be the hottest day ever in Cape Town and the Western Cape and punted temperatures would reach 41,5 degrees C.   The highest temperature reached in Cape Town was in fact 34 degrees C.   The highest temperature ever recorded in Cape Town was 43 degrees C.

It seems that summer has arrived in the Western Cape at last.   We had about 6 days on which temperatures were above 30 degrees C since the start of December and for the res t the temperature varied between  17 degrees and 26 degrees.    After a hot day today the temperature forecast for tomorrow is 26 degrees.   

There is a lot said on site that global warming is real and that any variations are exceptions to the rule.   However is the opposite not also the case.   One get a few hot days and suddenly that is the norm  and when that is not repeated there is just the few hot days  that is taken into account to prove global warming.   

An increase of 1,2 degrees in temperatures measured over 200 years can surely not be regarded as a major crisis that necessitates  emergency action based on science -  but it is especially when it fit leftist political agendas in favor of 100% control over humans.   .    

Try as you might Anger, Google till the steam comes off your computer…..there are no answers to those points. The trick is you have to have  imagination before you Google….like looking at the warming thing in the context of oil reserves. A natural limit  that never occurred to the policy makers or you for that matter.