placeholder

"One can only guess at the pollution numbers from these two, and will they do anything about it, nooooooo." Time to brush up on your command of both facts and English What the 2021 China Wind Power Boom Means for the World Wind power in China is booming, according to data from last year. Offshore wind saw a 16.9 gigawatt (GW) increase in capacity, greater than every other country combined in the past five years. On top of that, China brought online an extra 30.67 GW of onshore wind energy. https://energytracker.asia/what-the-2021-china-wind-power-boom-means-for-the-world/ India Installed A Record 10GW Solar Power This Year, 210% Rise From 2020 https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-installed-10gw-solar-power-in-2021-568900.html As for your "philosophical ruminations... "Our Earth has always been its own boss, it does what it has too..." are you competing to be the world's next leading New Age Guru? You've definitely got the BS patter down.

You offer no explanation, just an assertion. Which is not surprising, since you clearly don't understand that there's a difference in meaning between "increased solar activity" and "solar activity".

Data is hard; pictures are easy.

When over 99% of research papers reflect a research consensus, maybe it's time you learned what's the difference between a "conjecture" and a scientific theory. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

You know this? Please share with us the source of your knowledge.

There's not much, if anything, that can be done about willful ignorance. So I won't even suggest that you read the IPCC report about the huge difference between damage caused by a 1.5 degree increase and that caused by a 2 degree increase. And that rate of increases has been accelerating. So it's not a question of even 100 years anymore. And you think that turning the AC on will mitigate the huge damage to infrastructure that the UK, among other nations, is experiencing from high heat? Can you explain how that works?

You might try reading the entire article: "The World Weather Attribution group analyzed historical weather data that suggested early, long heat waves that impact a massive geographical area are rare, once-a-century events. But the current level of global warming, caused by human-caused climate change, has made those heat waves 30 times more likely."

I guess when you've got nothing, conspiracies theories are the way to go.

What don't you understand about the phrase "increased solar activity"?

Do you actually read that Wikipedia article? I seriously doubt it since it begins with this: Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Yes the climate is always changing but not this rapidly. And the warming properties of CO2 has been settled science since the mid 19th century. Do please share with us in what leading scientific journals is this "huge weight of research" to be found. Since the quantity of this research is huge, it should be easy enough for you to share a link or two with us.

You're such a little Englander. I got some news for you: Britain is not the World.

You might want to look closer to home when questions about perspicacity arise. In fact, governments have been directly responsible for huge reductions in pollution thanks to laws and regulations. The rise of solar and wind power has also been greatly aided by said governments. If you like, you can ask me to provide evidence. There's plenty of it. But I don't think you really want to know.

That shill for the Republican party, otherwise known as Samuel Alito, cited dubious precedents to show that abortion was regarded as a crime at the time of the creation of the constitution. But it turns out that Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry thought differently. https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/07/19/1792-case-reveals-that-key-founders-saw-abortion-private-matter/

More bad news for musk. He wanted the trial date to be moved to next year. Twitter asked for a trial in September. The judge set the trial for October. Not only that, but contrary to what a lot of Musk's fanboys believed about a prolonged procedure, the trial will only take 5 days. Twitter-Musk trial on $44 billion deal set to begin in October after Musk loses effort to delay Delaware Court of Chancery Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ruled in favor of an expedited five-day trial, to take place in October, after a hearing conducted via teleconference. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/19/twitter-wins-bid-for-expedited-trial-to-force-musk-to-close-deal.html

The thing is, ice ages are known for having sharp rises and falls in temperatures. So comparing climatological phenomena that takes place during ice ages at their most intense to the current situation doesn't shed much light. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170619125822.htm#:~:text=age temperature jumps-,New study reveals carbon dioxide 'tipping point' that triggered,abrupt warming during glacial periods&text=Summary%3A,during the ice age periods.

What do you know about my personal life and what I do? What don't you understand about the fact that we are all anonymous here and our claims can't be objectively verified? Please spare us any more of your virtue-signaling.

As for abrupt climate change...it may well be that there are hidden such instances. But what are the odds that a rise in temperature predicted by climatologists actually came to pass and conformed to such predictions? The predictions of the Japanese scientist who recently received the Nobel for his work have turned out to be astonishingly accurate. As have most of the predictions of the early models created by climatologists.

Well, please share with us some examples of the fear mongering and panic coming from the IPCC's latest reports. As for personal claims about from an anonymous poster about what they are doing to lower their carbon footprint, or requests from anonymours others to prove the same, it is to laugh.

What ought to be embarrassing is comments like yours that clearly reflect an utter ignorance of the science of climatology.

Well, what you've got is a problem with physics dating back almost 200 year when the great Irish physicist John Tindall proved ethe warming capacity of CO2. John Tyndall FRS (/ˈtɪndəl/; 2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893) was a prominent 19th-century Irish physicist. His initial scientific fame arose in the 1850s from his study of diamagnetism. Later he made discoveries in the realms of infrared radiation and the physical properties of air, proving the connection between atmospheric CO2 and what is now known as the greenhouse effect in 1859. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall As for sea level rise: "Since the early 1990s, satellites carrying radar altimeters have been tracking the changing height of the ocean surface, and show that global mean sea level has risen, on average, by just over 3 mm every year and, worryingly, that this rate of rise has increased in recent years." https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/New_satellite_data_techniques_reveal_coastal_sea-level_rise#:~:text=Since the early 1990s%2C satellites,has increased in recent years. Satellites show warming is accelerating sea level rise "Melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are speeding up the already fast pace of sea level rise, new satellite research shows. At the current rate, the world’s oceans on average will be at least 2 feet (61 centimeters) higher by the end of the century compared to today, according to researchers who published in Monday’s Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences." https://apnews.com/article/north-america-science-us-news-ap-top-news-climate-cf2f9386c024449aae126351d6c67cde

Citing a cartoon as some kind of evidence or argument is just a way of advertising one's ignorance. You've got nothing.

And what relevance do you believe that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, or methane, for that matter, has to the issue of global warming?

You take no account of humidity. You should look up "wet bulb temperature".

I blame the media and their fake news for weakening the will not just of humans but of British infrastructure as well. Who is so foolish as to believe that rails would be buckling and tarmac be melting if not for the media purveying the lies of environmental alarmists and their alarming alarmism?