placeholder

Even if your characterization of how samples were obtained in the last 200 years was accurate, there is plenty of recent evidence to support the fact that the warming of the oceans is ongoing. Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities traps heat within the climate system and increases ocean heat content (OHC). Here, we provide the first analysis of recent OHC changes through 2021 from two international groups. The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s record value by 14 ± 11 ZJ (1 zetta J = 1021 J) using the IAP/CAS dataset and by 16 ± 10 ZJ using NCE https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3I/NOAA dataset. The Oceans Are Getting Warmer Annual average temperatures of the oceans’ surfaces have been diverging from the 20th century (1900-1999) average more and more since the 1980s. In 2021, global ocean surface temperatures were 0.65 degrees Celsius higher than that century’s average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). https://www.statista.com/chart/19418/divergence-of-ocean-temperatures-from-20th-century-average/

Well, when someone calls those who disagree with them an "alarmist mob" maybe accusing that someone of being willfully dishonest isn't out of line.

Whatever the merits of the info that the link leads to, (and given that it comes from climateaudit.org its merits are dubious) the fact is that the "hockey stick" has been confirmed over and over again by climatologists using different data sources. It is now settled science.

Plenty of links to how proxy determinations of global temperature gets done have been offered. If you don't want to follow those links and learn something, well, that's what's called willful ignorance.

But do we deserve the nonsense you're pushing? Got some actual evidence from these globalists to share with us?

Playing with the multiple meanings of "fixed" may be your idea of the basis for a rational scientific discussion, but it's clearly irrelevant to how science actually gets done. However, to a conspiracy theorist such as yourself, it probably is their idea of how science gets done.

Well, when people start touting conspiracy theories, I don't think labelling them is out of line? Of course, if you subscribe to conspiracy theories, then you'll probably disagree.

Modern Climate Change Is the Only Worldwide Warming Event of the Past 2,000 Years New research finds that previous periods of warming and cooling driven by natural causes were regional shifts in temperature rather than global events https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-climate-change-only-worldwide-warming-event-past-2000-years-180972719/ No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf? Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0.epdf?

Thanks for missing my point. Your quarrel is with the bigot who posted this:

You think that's bad? There's some deluded bloke named Rishi Sunak who thinks he's British enough to be PM. Go figure.

It shows.

Looks like Musk drew the short straw Twitter, Elon Musk, and the 'pleasant, unassuming' Delaware judge who may force him to pay tens of billions of dollars Kathaleen McCormick will be the judge in Twitter v Elon Musk lawsuit. Columbia Law professor Eric Talley said her record of siding with sellers was bad news for Musk. The Delaware Chancery Court's focus on optics was also bad news for the Tesla CEO, Talley said. https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-in-twitter-elon-musk-trial-could-be-musk-nightmare-2022-7

I realize that they are both would-be explanations. I also recognize that they contradict each other.

Do you think Trump's accusations are really a cry for help? That he wants to be arrested? I offer this in support of that thesis: Trump called a top Wisconsin election official last week urging him to decertify Biden's 2020 election win in the state — in the midst of the January 6 hearings into the former president's efforts to overturn the election The Wisconsin Assembly Speaker said Trump urged him to decertify Biden's win earlier this month. Robin Vos told WISN-TV 12 News that Trump raised the topic following a state Supreme Court ruling on ballot boxes. When Vos refused, Trump took to social media to slam the election official. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-called-top-wisconsin-election-014425625.html

On the one hand you claim that "The world has always gone through cycles of cooling and warming." On the other "The sun is hot so you would expect warming of the earth." Make up your mind.

Well, since China and India have only recently industrialized, most of the increase in CO2 is due to nations that developed earlier.

The eleven year solar cycle was very weakly correlated with temperature up until about 1975. At that point something stronger overwhelmed that correlation. Namely, the forcing effect of greenhouse gases.

You may be clever enough for that. But are you clever enough to understand that instrumentation keeps on improving? Or do you believe that progress stopped after the invention of the magnifying glass?

Well, solar and wind already are cheaper than coal. Even back when the price of coal was depressed. And when gas prices were low, batteries were already cheaper than gas peaker plants. At current prices for natural gas, solar and wind are cheaper. It's also useful to point out that fossil fuels are highly subsidized. About 6% if global GDP. Most of that subsidy comes in the form of health care costs born by others.

Not with current policies, they won't.

Really? Does that mean when you alight on foreign soil, you can't breathe? Or are you now claiming that there's some sort of global conspiracy in reporting the weather so you only believe in the weather where you live? And given that Britain is about 200,000 square kilometers. how do you manage to live in the entire place?

Who needs cleverness when you've got cluelessness?

I guess when you've got nothing, why not propose a massive scientific conspiracy?

You and BritmanToo should launch a Planet UK website.

I've forgotten if it was you or someone who posted that because grapes grew in Britain once upon a time, that means that global warming isn't real. What don't you understand about the fact that Britain is not the entire world. The surface of Britain covers 209,331 square miles. The surface of land on Earth comes to about 150,000,000 square kilometers. The Earth as a whole has about 500,000,000 square kilometers of surface. So the UK holds about .14% of land surface. And from this tiny sample you draw conclusions?