[Politics] Brexit

Thunder Bolt said:

Remainers, let's have a bit of light-hearted fun. How many errors can you spot?

[tweet]1054634712793337856[/tweet]

Click to expand...

I'll start at the top - I don't like the word 'proud' at the best of times but when used in conjunction with the 100% accidental location of your birth then it's erroneous, one cannot be proud of something that one had, literally, no impact on. IMO, of course

Herr Tubthumper said:

I still think [MENTION=14132]Two Professors[/MENTION] claiming (bullshitting) he meant Canada and Argentina when he said American meat is my favourite. That said, his fantasy drinking club is the gift which keeps giving.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the company he gave as an example of high quality meat boasted that they provide "processed meat to over 3000 branches of McDonalds and cater for the processed meat industry".. Mmm mm, sure does sound tasty!

ManOfSussex said:

It just proves everything about you I'm afraid - Aside from various US newspaper reports that document it, (and the fact as the coal industry fund him too) he even admitted it on CNN.

Click to expand...

What about Dr Roy Spencer of UAH who co-produces the UAH satellite dataset and disputes the IPCC catastrophic claims/models? No doubt you’ll assume that he’s carbon funded too. Or maybe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry. No, she’s bound to be oil bought too. Bloody pathetic response, but I expect no less from you.

How much funding do you think is made available for scientists who wish to investigate other causes of climate change apart from CO2? If you want to be critical of the sources of funding, look at that.

Thunder Bolt said:

Remainers, let's have a bit of light-hearted fun. How many errors can you spot?

[tweet]1054634712793337856[/tweet]

Click to expand...

Ironically seemingly in the queue to get a ferry to the EU.

Herr Tubthumper said:

I see self-styled super-chill [MENTION=240]larus[/MENTION] is whipping up another head of steam.

Click to expand...

Ah, a full-house of fools today. Still struggling to read charts eh!. Never mind, at least Clamp makes you look semi-smart.

larus said:

What about Dr Roy Spencer of UAH who co-produces the UAH satellite dataset and disputes the IPCC catastrophic claims/models? No doubt you’ll assume that he’s carbon funded too. Or maybe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry. No, she’s bound to be oil bought too. Bloody pathetic response, but I expect no less from you.

How much funding do you think is made available for scientists who wish to investigate other causes of climate change apart from CO2? If you want to be critical of the sources of funding, look at that.

Click to expand...

Pssst, I don't think you can recover this one, chap.

What a marvelous little distraction. I'm glad I popped my head round now. Good times.


























Before you question my mental health, I'm doing this purely to wind you up because I think you're an utter bell cheese.

larus said:

What about Dr Roy Spencer of UAH who co-produces the UAH satellite dataset and disputes the IPCC catastrophic claims/models? No doubt you’ll assume that he’s carbon funded too. Or maybe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry. No, she’s bound to be oil bought too. Bloody pathetic response, but I expect no less from you.

How much funding do you think is made available for scientists who wish to investigate other causes of climate change apart from CO2? If you want to be critical of the sources of funding, look at that.

Click to expand...

Now with that you've managed to actually surpass all your previous gibberish today by playing the whataboutery card and even started your post with the words 'What about' too -

ManOfSussex said:

It just proves everything about you I'm afraid - Aside from various US newspaper reports that document it, (and the fact as the coal industry fund him too) he even admitted it on CNN.

Click to expand...

Owned yet again!!

ManOfSussex said:

Now with that you've manage to actually surpass all your previous gibberish today by playing the whataboutery card and even started your post with the words 'What about' too -

Click to expand...

Lovely stuff. I'm off for a meatball sub. 12", hearty Italian, everything except jalapenos. What a time to be alive.

Herr Tubthumper said:

I still think [MENTION=14132]Two Professors[/MENTION] claiming (bullshitting) he meant Canada and Argentina when he said American meat is my favourite. That said, his fantasy drinking club is the gift which keeps giving.

Click to expand...

The 'America' thing was top notch, even by 2P's standards.

His complete failure to grasp the 'baked bean' (collective bargaining) analogy was quite fun, too, but he's just won his own personal 'How Wrong Can I be on the Internet?' contest with his take on the Anglo-Irish relationship.

He really is a treat.

The Clamp said:

Lovely stuff. I'm off for a meatball sub. 12", hearty Italian, everything except jalapenos. What a time to be alive.

Click to expand...

hans kraay fan club said:

Click to expand...

They give me the Eartha's.

mikeyjh said:

I'll start at the top - I don't like the word 'proud' at the best of times but when used in conjunction with the 100% accidental location of your birth then it's erroneous, one cannot be proud of something that one had, literally, no impact on. IMO, of course

Click to expand...

True, not forgetting (hint) that he cannot even use correct English grammar.

The Clamp said:

They give me the Eartha's.

Click to expand...

I had that problem this morning after a very jalapeno-y sandwich yesterday lunchtime...

schmunk said:

I had that problem this morning after a very jalapeno-y sandwich yesterday lunchtime...

Click to expand...

A common theme. I would normally go for it but drank a LOT of Guinness in the Fiddlers Elbow last night and I’m still waiting for the effects of that to kick in on my guts, I don’t wanna add to my problems.

ManOfSussex said:

Now with that you've managed to actually surpass all your previous gibberish today by playing the whataboutery card and even started your post with the words 'What about' too -

Click to expand...

OK, so it was poor grammer.

Try reading and understanding this (a portion cut from https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf?utm_source=Media&utm_campaign=0c38ae2652-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_09_12_57_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8f98a37810-0c38ae2652-20197665). By Dr Richard Lindzen.

(Richard S. Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology until his retirement in 2013. He is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and of the Academic Advisory Council of GWPF.)

So yeah, another Flat-Earther who hasn’t got a clue no doubt.
The climate system
The following description of the climate system contains nothing that is in the least contro- versial, and I expect that anyone with a scientific background will readily follow the descrip- tion. I will also try, despite Snow’s observations, to make the description intelligible to the non-scientist.
The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids (the atmosphere and oceans) interacting with each other. By ‘turbulent,’ I simply mean that it is characterized by irregular circulations like those found in a gurgling brook or boiling water, but on the planetary scale of the oceans and the atmosphere. The opposite of turbulent is called laminar, but any fluid forced to move fast enough becomes turbulent and turbulence obviously limits predictabil- ity. By interaction, I simply mean that they exert stress on each other and exchange heat with each other.
These fluids are on a rotating planet that is unevenly heated by the sun. The motions in the atmosphere (and to a lesser extent in the oceans) are generated by the uneven influence of the sun. The sun, itself, can be steady, but it shines directly on the tropics while barely skimming the Earth at the poles. The drivers of the oceans are more complex and include forcing by wind as well as the sinking of cold and salty water. The rotation of the Earth has many consequences too, but for the present, we may simply note that it leads to radiation being distributed around a latitude circle.
The oceans have circulations and currents operating on time scales ranging from years to millennia, and these systems carry heat to and from the surface. Because of the scale and density of the oceans, the flow speeds are generally much smaller than in the atmosphere and are associated with much longer timescales. The fact that these circulations carry heat to and from the surface means that the surface, itself, is never in equilibrium with space. That is to say, there is never an exact balance between incoming heat from the sun and outgoing radiation generated by the Earth because heat is always being stored in and released from the oceans and surface temperature is always, therefore, varying somewhat.
In addition to the oceans, the atmosphere is interacting with a hugely irregular land sur- face. As air passes over mountain ranges, the flow is greatly distorted. Topography therefore plays a major role in modifying regional climate. These distorted air-flows even generate fluid waves that can alter climate at distant locations. Computer simulations of the climate generally fail to adequately describe these effects.
A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast impacts on energy flows. Each component also has important radiative impacts. You all know that it takes heat to melt ice, and it takes fur- ther heat for the resulting water to become vapor or, as it is sometimes referred to, steam. The term humidity refers to the amount of vapor in the atmosphere. The flow of heat is reversed when the phase changes are reversed; that is, when vapor condenses into water, and when water freezes. The release of heat when water vapor condenses drives thunder clouds (known as cumulonimbus), and the energy in a thundercloud is comparable to that released in an H-bomb. I say this simply to illustrate that these energy transformations are very substantial. Clouds consist of water in the form of fine droplets and ice in the form of fine crystals. Normally, these fine droplets and crystals are suspended by rising air currents, but when these grow large enough they fall through the rising air as rain and snow. Not only are the energies involved in phase transformations important, so is the fact that both water vapor and clouds (both ice- and water-based) strongly affect radiation. Although I haven’t discussed the greenhouse effect yet, I’m sure all of you have heard that carbon diox- ide is a greenhouse gas and that this explains its warming effect. You should, therefore, understand that the two most important greenhouse substances by far are water vapor and clouds. Clouds are also important reflectors of sunlight.
The unit for describing energy flows is watts per square meter. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. The Earth receives about 340 watts per square meter from the sun, but about 140 watts per square meter is simply reflected back to space, by both the Earth’s surface and, more importantly, by clouds. This leaves about 200 watts per square meter that the Earth would have to emit in order to establish balance. The sun radiates in the visible portion of the radiation spectrum because its temperature is about 6000K. ‘K’ refers to Kelvins, which are simply degrees Centigrade plus 273. Zero K is the lowest possible temperature (−273◦C). Temperature determines the spectrum of the emit- ted radiation. If the Earth had no atmosphere at all (but for purposes of argument still was reflecting 140 watts per square meter), it would have to radiate at a temperature of about 255K, and, at this temperature, the radiation is mostly in the infrared.
Of course, the Earth does have an atmosphere and oceans, and this introduces a host of complications. So be warned, what follows will require a certain amount of concentra- tion. Evaporation from the oceans gives rise to water vapor in the atmosphere, and water vapor very strongly absorbs and emits radiation in the infrared. This is what we mean when we call water vapor a greenhouse gas. The water vapor essentially blocks infrared radiation from leaving the surface, causing the surface and (via conduction) the air adjacent to the surface to heat, and, as in a heated pot of water, convection sets on. Because the density of air decreases with height, the buoyant elements expand as they rise. This causes the buoy- ant elements to cool as they rise, and the mixing results in decreasing temperature with height rather than a constant temperature. To make matters more complicated, the amount of water vapor that the air can hold decreases rapidly as the temperature decreases. At some height there is so little water vapor above this height that radiation from this level can now escape to space. It is at this elevated level (around 5 km) that the temperature must be about 255K in order to balance incoming radiation. However, because convection causes temper- ature to decrease with height, the surface now has to actually be warmer than 255K. It turns out that it has to be about 288K (which is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface). This is what is known as the greenhouse effect. It is an interesting curiosity that had con- vection produced a uniform temperature, there wouldn’t be a greenhouse effect. In reality, the situation is still more complicated. Among other things, the existence of upper-level cirrus clouds, which are very strong absorbers and emitters of infrared radiation, effectively block infrared radiation from below. Thus, when such clouds are present above about 5 km, their tops rather than the height of 5 km determine the level from which infrared reaches space. Now the addition of other greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide) elevates the emis- sion level, and because of the convective mixing, the new level will be colder. This reduces the outgoing infrared flux, and, in order to restore balance, the atmosphere would have to warm. Doubling carbon dioxide concentration is estimated to be equivalent to a forcing of about 3.7 watts per square meter, which is little less than 2% of the net incoming 200 watts per square meter. Many factors, including cloud area and height, snow cover, and ocean circulations, commonly cause changes of comparable magnitude.
It is important to note that such a system will fluctuate with time scales ranging from sec- onds to millennia, even in the absence of an explicit forcing other than a steady sun. Much of the popular literature (on both sides of the climate debate) assumes that all changes must be driven by some external factor. Of course, the climate system is driven by the sun, but even if the solar forcing were constant, the climate would still vary. This is actually something that all of you have long known – even if you don’t realize it. After all, you have no difficulty rec- ognizing that the steady stroking of a violin string by a bow causes the string to vibrate and generate sound waves. In a similar way, the atmosphere–ocean system responds to steady forcing with its own modes of variation (which, admittedly, are often more complex than the modes of a violin string). Moreover, given the massive nature of the oceans, such variations can involve timescales of millennia rather than milliseconds. El Niño is a relatively short ex- ample, involving years, but most of these internal time variations are too long to even be identified in our relatively short instrumental record. Nature has numerous examples of au- tonomous variability, including the approximately 11-year sunspot cycle and the reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field every couple of hundred thousand years or so. In this respect, the climate system is no different from other natural systems.
Of course, such systems also do respond to external forcing, but such forcing is not needed for them to exhibit variability. While the above is totally uncontroversial, please think about it for a moment. Consider the massive heterogeneity and complexity of the system, and the variety of mechanisms of variability as we consider the current narrative that is commonly presented as ‘settled science.’

——————

But no, it must be the increase in a trace gas from 287 ppm to 405 ppm.

Oh, BTW The Clamp. Flat-earrters were those who agreed with the consensus and were wrong. Much like you on everything .

Gwylan said:

That's not true at all. Irish citizens have the right to live in the UK, British citizens have the right to live in ROI; there are also reciprocal voting rights. It's an arrangement that has nothing to do with Brexit and the government has made clear that there are changes to this arrangement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...and-irish-nationals-in-the-common-travel-area

Click to expand...

Then they don't have immigration rules applying to them.Exactly what I said.No need to jump in like a loser.You try and get employment in Dublin-not as easy as getting a job here,unless you transfer with a company.

Herr Tubthumper said:

You really do talk some total and utter shite at times.

Click to expand...

As opposed to you,who very rarely talks anything else.

WATFORD zero said:

Corrected for you

Click to expand...

Ah,the Archbishop of Nausebury.No JPEGs?

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

What happened to all the eloquent rational Brexiteer posters on this thread?

Click to expand...

You have everyone over IQ 50 on your ignore list.