BeSteveL 🐝

I speak fluent climate change, sustainability and energy transition. With a side helping of Barnet FC

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@ToryWipeout @IanJones_16 It's not a very high bar.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

I try not to, but the other half insists occasionally.

My lawn is more moss, daisies, buttercups and dandelions than actual grass.

Overtime I've converted and expanded the flower beds to native shrubs.

I'm working on it but it's sad when I look at neighbours who have wall to wall fake grass or who are out watering and cutting their perfectly manicured lawn almost every day.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

I took the decision this year to do no mow june for exactly this reason. It's pointless having everyone rushing to cut their grass at the end of may and leaving nothing for pollinators and other wildlife.

[Ian Rotherham @IanThewildside]

Gone are the Ox-eye Daisies & Buttercups.
From 'No Mow May' to 'Mow Mow June'.... the same roadside verges got mowed today. I wonder what you think? Pretty much zero pollen & nectar, no 'slowing the flow', no significant biodiversity benefit. Also it doesn't look great either...

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

You are making a claim that isnt supported .

Whilst the instrumentation wasn't standardised, it is possible to gain a reasonably accurate temperature record.

Certainly not as accurate as todays instruments, but still more than usable for the purposes of studying change in temperature over time.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

This dear Climate Deniers has now been confirmed.

Hottest spring temperatures in 367 years
https://t.co/HrsOHO082H

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

Dear Climate change deniers .

Today UK broke it's May temperature record by 2C.

The UK has temperature records going back 350 years and in all that time we have never come close to this May temp.

Without climate change this temp in UK would be impossible

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

367 years is the length of the Central England temperature record. It does not cover 1410-1450, for that period we have proxies and anecdotal evidence
https://t.co/jjB67do61z

The chances of a temperature record falling is dependant on two factors.
The chance of that temperature occurring at the time
The change in that chance of occurring since.

What we see is that the record is an outlier at 2.5C higher than typical high temperatures at that time making it's probability low. We also see that while the area was cooler in the 1950-1980 period the chance of it being repeated was diminished. The high temperature today is averaging 1C higher than when the record was broken and therefore chances of breaking it again have now increased. So no, there is no reason to assume it should've been smashed several times over, but there is reason to believe that continued warming since 1980 is increasing the likelihood that it will be broken.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil Sure,
Yet here is the paper
https://t.co/DEio9W04n1

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil Lol.

We are done with your desperate denial of every source except the one that has been shown to have deep flaws.

https://t.co/OWpjmhaPsF

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil Cheerio

for anyone who wants to know here is the original post that was ignored

https://t.co/DEio9W04n1

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil Lol.

We are done with your desperate denial of every source except the one that has been shown to have deep flaws.

https://t.co/OWpjmhaPsF

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

What you've got is a flawed paper in an unrelated journal that is referenced almost solely to point out it's errors.

And that's the problem you have, those rebuttals to the conclusion show the 14C data used support the IPCC claims.

They also explain why Skrable failed to include this 584Gt in the anthropogenic CO2.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil I'm not your research assistant.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil What I'm saying is Skrable has 584GT that is cant account for.

We know why but Skrable just ignores it.

So where did this extra CO2 come from?

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil The paper is analysing the accuracy of CERES data.

You are attempting FUD and shooting yourself in the foot.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil Christ man,
If you were capable you would know I'm not referring to Levin.

I have repeatedly said that the paper references Levin.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil Twice you have been provided with a paper, on one occasion you were provided with a screenshot of some of the references it uses.

You are a fraud.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil And you have no papers disproving it.

All you have is a paper that's calculations lose 584Gt CO2

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil This is even funnier

You are attempting to discredit the CERES data you are relying on

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil Yes it's funny because you cannot accept the evidence .

Let me know when you have persuaded one scientific research establishment.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

You have completely failed.

Your chosen papers evidence supports the claim but the conclusion has been shown to be flawed. You have been shown evidence of this.

You have provided no evidence that the author has republished in response to these flaws, nor have you shown they responded since November 2022 to the obvious errors highlighted by multiple researchers.

So where did the extra 584Gt of CO2 come from?

Neither you nor the Author have provided an answer despite it being implicit in the paper when you convert all values used are converted to GTons CO2.

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil and here
https://t.co/6ype77pDaO

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

@Stephen57908892 @JustUseOil This is well explained here.

https://t.co/Xl9KjDj9K0

[BeSteveL 🐝 @BrknMan]

So share the republished paper after November 2022 that corrects these errors. You cannot because it didn't happen.

So now you have to justify ignoring the extra carbon that Skrable hid in his republished paper and didnt address.

Meanwhile I have twice shared a paper and provided you with a screenshot of some of the references used to build the findings.

Name calling isnt going to dig you out of this one.