Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes actually I said trolling and dishonest.

 

Who claimed that both those quotes came from the same link. One of the links I posted contained this one.

 

analyzing the shells of single-celled plankton buried under the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Africa. By dating the shells and measuring their ratio of boron isotopes,

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm

 

A separate link already posted by another poster contains this

 

"shells of single-celled plankton buried under the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Africa. By dating the shells and measuring their ratio of boron isotopes"

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

 

& here's another example of your dishonesty. You previously claimed that my IPCC quote was also false:

 

A.2.1 In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

So, I was right, it was not in the link I referred to. Thanks for owning up. 

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, I was right, it was not in the link I referred to. Thanks for owning up. 

No you're not right but that's ok, I'm used to your lies and trolling. Par for the course

[Danderman123]

8 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

That says what they don't believe it to be caused by solar activity.  That doesn't say it is definitively proven to be caused by carbon emmissions.  In 1800 there were 1 billion people on earth.  There are now 8 billion.  So is it carbon emmissions.  

The fact that the CO2 emmissions are the highest, and temperatures are rising is a CORRELATION.  

The number of Pizza's consumed in the world is the highest in 2 million years to.  Does that prove that pizza consumption caused global warming.  No. 

Again, the earth has wamed and then gone through glacial periods for millions of years.  You ignore the fact that warming and cooling as EVIDENCED is a natural phenomena.  If and I repeat if the earth reverses and begins to cool towards a glacial period would you then equally suggest it is carbon emmission that caused the cooling? 

The last Interglacial Maximum was 8,000 years ago. We have been cooling ever since.

 

But, now there is warming, despite the historical cooling trend.

[Danderman123]

On 7/28/2023 at 8:31 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

The facts debunk this report as false... the 1930's were far hotter... the 1970's were far cooler... 

1934 was the hottest year on record for the USA, but nit the entire planet.

 

You are misinformed.

[Danderman123]

9 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

That says what they don't believe it to be caused by solar activity.  That doesn't say it is definitively proven to be caused by carbon emmissions.  In 1800 there were 1 billion people on earth.  There are now 8 billion.  So is it carbon emmissions.  

The fact that the CO2 emmissions are the highest, and temperatures are rising is a CORRELATION.  

The number of Pizza's consumed in the world is the highest in 2 million years to.  Does that prove that pizza consumption caused global warming.  No. 

Again, the earth has wamed and then gone through glacial periods for millions of years.  You ignore the fact that warming and cooling as EVIDENCED is a natural phenomena.  If and I repeat if the earth reverses and begins to cool towards a glacial period would you then equally suggest it is carbon emmission that caused the cooling? 

Correlation is valid if there is a mechanism to explain the correlation.

 

In this case, perhaps you can explain why the stratosphere is cooking.

 

I am so sorry that your internet friends have not given you talking points to answer this.

[Danderman123]

12 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

 

This notion that you can look at the past 100 to 200 years and somehow use it as "normal" is just ridiculous.  The earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years.  

There is a perfrect correlation between the per capita spending on cheese and died being hung in their own bedsheets.  

This idea that somehow that correlations human made carbon emission with climate change is just as spurious.  It is a correlation, not a proven correlation. 




What is the mid Holocene warm period?

 

 

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.Nov 12, 2564 BE

 

Wow. You really don't understand this stuff.

 

We have been in a cooling trend for 8,000 years. Except, there is a warming trend due to human emissions over the past few decades.

 

You can ask your internet friends why the stratosphere is cooling, but they won't answer you.

 

 

[Danderman123]

13 hours ago, JonnyF said:

So in conclusion.

 

1. The planet might be getting warmer.

2. The planet's climate has always changed. You may have heard of the ice age. I believe that occured before humans were having any effect.

3. If it is getting warmer, it is minimal and we cannot prove that is due to humans.

4. Even though it might be getting warmer, there are far fewer climate related deaths than ever since we have the technology to cope with the change.

5. Techonology is changing far quicker than the climate.

 

So what's the panic? Oh that's right, it's a great excuse to push through other agendas such as higher taxes, more state control, fewer rights for citizens. That almost sounds like a socialist agenda. Who'd a thunk it?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22069768

 

 

No wonder there's such a high correlation between Left wing ideology and climate alarmism. And people are starting to see it. The game's up.

Nope.

 

The planet is warming significantly, due to human emissions, with no end in sight.

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The more rational know that it is just summer.

I own a table grape farm in California. Climate change now causes winters to be so warm that the grapes aren't sweet anymore.

[Scott]

Posts violating the community guidelines have been removed.

 

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Screaming said:

All this climate hysteria is nonsense. The earth' climate including carbon dioxide has been changing for millions of years. There are natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide, such as outgassing from the ocean, decomposing vegetation and other biomass, venting volcanoes, naturally occurring wildfires, and even belches from ruminant animals. These natural sources of carbon dioxide are offset by “sinks”—things like photosynthesis by plants on land and in the ocean, direct absorption into the ocean, and the creation of soil and peat. The sample size taken by scientists to proselytize their "Climate Change" hysteria is too small to validate any observations of the millions of years of data.

 

An interesting book, "Determining Sample Size and Power in Research Studies" will point out the importance of sample size for desired accuracy in estimation and in hypothesis testing experiments for a desired effect size.

Please do tell us what samples sizes the climate scientists used and explain your expertise that allows you to challenge the validity of those sample sizes.

[Danderman123]

17 hours ago, Screaming said:

All this climate hysteria is nonsense. The earth' climate including carbon dioxide has been changing for millions of years. There are natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide, such as outgassing from the ocean, decomposing vegetation and other biomass, venting volcanoes, naturally occurring wildfires, and even belches from ruminant animals. These natural sources of carbon dioxide are offset by “sinks”—things like photosynthesis by plants on land and in the ocean, direct absorption into the ocean, and the creation of soil and peat. The sample size taken by scientists to proselytize their "Climate Change" hysteria is too small to validate any observations of the millions of years of data.

 

An interesting book, "Determining Sample Size and Power in Research Studies" will point out the importance of sample size for desired accuracy in estimation and in hypothesis testing experiments for a desired effect size.

Because thousands of climate scientists and agencies around the workd are wrong, and your kniwledge is superior to them.

 

And it was a lucky guess by them 40 years ago that the planet would be warming now.

[Danderman123]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:34 AM, JonnyF said:

It's because they share the same end game.

 

Big state control. High taxation (redistribution of wealth) under the guise of green taxes. Diminishing rights for citizens. 

 

Climate alarmism is a wonderful tool for all 3. It's no coinicidence that members of the doomsday cult are always left wing.

and those scientists who predicted the current warming 40 years ago were just lucky.

[Danderman123]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:48 AM, JonnyF said:

Well it's certainly having a catastrophic effect on humanity.????

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fclimate-activists-disasters-fire-storms-deaths-change-cop26-glasgow-global-warming-11635973538&psig=AOvVaw147WomOkGkRQHWKsazKSic&ust=1691718453404000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBMQjhxqFwoTCPCz5r380IADFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

 

 

 

It's almost as if someone launched weather satellites so that people would be warned of imminent climate disasters.

[Danderman123]

21 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

And where exactly do you get your evidence that it is causal?  

Your simplistic association of climate change to C02 emmisions first off assumes the change to be abnormal.  The earths temperature has had wide swings for millions of years from ice ages to interglacial periods. 

Second, other factors "may" influence the earths temperture.  We know that volcanos spewing ash shade the earth shading the earth.  So is it conceivable that the amount of volcanic ash in the atmosphere is also low at this point causing the temperature of the earth to rise as more sun peneatrate it. 

You have this single notion that there is one cause for global warming and first off assume that the phenomena is something more than the normal cooling and heating of the earth over many years.  Secondly, you assume that C02 is the cause of it.  You point to the last 200 years and the fact of industrial revolution.   Well we also didn't have solar panels, rubber bands, safety pens, flush toilets, and ball point pens 200 years ago.  Using your logic, perhaps it is the introduction of those that is causing weather change. 

You dismiss the idea that a changing climate is normal and ignore the fact that the climate of the earth has changed for millions of years.  You dismiss any idea that other factors or a combination of factors might influence temperature changes.  

Volcanic eruptions spew tons of particulate into the atomosphere impacting climate.  So this simplistic view that only humans and carbon emisions are the primary causitive is just that naive. 

The following things are true.  The earths temperature is slightly warmer. What we don't know is whether that is abnormal, what if anything is causing that, and most importantly what could possibly to mitigate it. 

I suggest this move to electrify everything has substantial adverse enviornmental outcomes as well.  The mining of lithium is extremely impactful.  The construction of power plants to supply the required energy, string the millions of miles of electric lines is not without its negative impact. 

Also, there is this notion that the warming of the earth is destructive.  Perhaps, but it could also prove beneficial as areas once to cold to grow crops become now able to support crop growth.  The warmer temperature decreases the need to burn oil, coal, natural gas to heat homes from much colder temperatures. 

Do I know any of this to be true.  No.  And neither do you.  It is a mere supposition that the earths warming is unatutural, that is is bad, hydrocarbons are to blame, and that something can be done about it even if true. 




This also peaked in 2023. 

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/14/world/solar-maximum-activity-2024-scn/index.html

 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html

Your internet friends have sent you talking points that look good to you, but are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

The mechanism by which CO2 warms the planet is well understood.

 

If you don't believe, explain why the stratosphere has been cooling. Your internet friends can't give you any talking points about that, sorry.

[Danderman123]

On 7/29/2023 at 2:51 PM, digger70 said:

Yes you right it doesn't matter what causes the warming  we can't fix it , let nature take its course it has been doing that since year dot.

The problem is that the current, human induced warming is heating the planet despite a natural cooling trend.

 

In fact, if your internet friends were smarter, they would state:

 

"yes, humans are causing a warming trend, but that's protecting us from nature plunging us into an Ice Age".

[placeholder]

42 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The problem is that the current, human induced warming is heating the planet despite a natural cooling trend.

 

In fact, if your internet friends were smarter, they would state:

 

"yes, humans are causing a warming trend, but that's protecting us from nature plunging us into an Ice Age".

They wouldn't be all that smart since re-glaciation wasn't projected to occur for another 20,000 years or so.

[Danderman123]

29 minutes ago, placeholder said:

They wouldn't be all that smart since re-glaciation wasn't projected to occur for another 20,000 years or so.

True, but global temperatures had been declining for 8,000 years until the current warming.

 

 

[Longwood50]

On 8/10/2023 at 11:12 AM, heybruce said:

Once again, rate of change matters.  Putting high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in an unnaturally short period of time has resulted in a dangerous rate of change.

Says who  You?  I say mining lithium is unnatural and harms the enviornment.  So your "solution" of electrification creates more enviornmental problems than it solves.  

Plus this  Always "look for the money" when someone is touting something.  Trillions are to be made forcing the world away from Carbon whether it is warranted or not. 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/

 

[Longwood50]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The problem is that the current, human induced warming is heating the planet despite a natural cooling trend.

Says who? 

[Longwood50]

16 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

But, now there is warming, despite the historical cooling trend.

The most dangerous person is not the fool but rather the person who believes things that just are not true. 


Unless you are older than 11,500 years the earth has been in an interglacial warming period during that time.  Not a cooling trend as you suggest. 

[Yellowtail]

And will all the silly alternative energy and social engineering, we are continuing it generate more CO2 each year. 

 

Stay the course! 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

Says who  You?  I say mining lithium is unnatural and harms the enviornment.  So your "solution" of electrification creates more enviornmental problems than it solves.  

Plus this  Always "look for the money" when someone is touting something.  Trillions are to be made forcing the world away from Carbon whether it is warranted or not. 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/

 

Which type of mining does more harm to the environment, coal or lithium?  Which has killed more people?

 

Do you think there isn't any money in the fossil fuel industry pushing against climate science?

 

Why should the views of one outlier scientist outweigh the overwhelming consensus?

[Yellowtail]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Which type of mining does more harm to the environment, coal or lithium?  Which has killed more people?

Which has benefited the world more? 

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you think there isn't any money in the fossil fuel industry pushing against climate science?

Compared to the amount of money pushing against the fossil fuel industry? 

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why should the views of one outlier scientist outweigh the overwhelming consensus?

Why should they not be considered? Why must everyone be silenced? Why all the shout-downs? 

 

Yesterday, in this thread, claims were made about how long it has been since the CO2 levels were as high as they are now, and the "experts" (i.e. those getting grants) sited varied by a million or two years, but all posted up as undeniable proof-positive the "science". "Expert" making estimates that vary by over 100%, but all posted up as fact, and anyone questioning it held up as a fool. 

 

 

 

[gamb00ler]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why should the views of one outlier scientist outweigh the overwhelming consensus?

Did I mention I'm a part time soothsayer?

 

I can see you getting an answer along the lines of:

• because I like outliers and I really want this one to be right
• because it just feels right
• did I mention that I want this outlier to be right

 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Says who? 

if you are going to base your opinion on claims from one scientist (or one doctor), you will constantly be surprised by reality.

 

Unless you are trolling, you can't possibly expect anyone to pay any attention to your post.

[placeholder]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Yesterday, in this thread, claims were made about how long it has been since the CO2 levels were as high as they are now, and the "experts" (i.e. those getting grants) sited varied by a million or two years, but all posted up as undeniable proof-positive the "science". "Expert" making estimates that vary by over 100%, but all posted up as fact, and anyone questioning it held up as a fool. 

More intellectual dishonesty from you. Your misrepresentation was already pointed out to you. An earlier research paper based on the samples it had said CO2 levels haven't been as high for about 2.1 million years. That's as far back as the sample went. Another more recent research paper with access to a longer sample put the time back to 3.6 million years.

Stop making things up.

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Which has benefited the world more? 

Ridiculous reply. When coal was just becoming an important industrial material, what if someone asked the same question about wood vs coal. What would that prove? What about  coal vs oil? Maybe you've got some kind of sentimental attachment to fossil fuels?

 

 

 

[placeholder]

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Compared to the amount of money pushing against the fossil fuel industry? 

Why should they not be considered? Why must everyone be silenced? Why all the shout-downs? 

And please share with us the figures on how much money is pushing against Little Oil, Tiny Gas, and Miniscule Coal.  Not so long ago you challenged the assertion that billions were being spent by the fossil fuel industry. Not only that but the IMF report that assessed the fossil fuel industry was being subsidized yearly to the tune of 5 trillion plus dollars. A few of us came up with evidence that proved that billions were spent and that the fossil fuel industry was being massively subsidized..

Now where is your proof about the extent of funding against the fossil fuel industry? How much money does that amount to?

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Says who? 

The scientist is Judith Curry, a well known quasi-Denier.

 

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Which has benefited the world more? 

Compared to the amount of money pushing against the fossil fuel industry? 

Why should they not be considered? Why must everyone be silenced? Why all the shout-downs? 

 

Yesterday, in this thread, claims were made about how long it has been since the CO2 levels were as high as they are now, and the "experts" (i.e. those getting grants) sited varied by a million or two years, but all posted up as undeniable proof-positive the "science". "Expert" making estimates that vary by over 100%, but all posted up as fact, and anyone questioning it held up as a fool. 

 

 

 

Coal has had its benefits, but its day is past.  Now it's just toxic, dangerous and increasingly unnecessary.  Lithium is the present (check the batteries on your gadgets) and the future, and mining it is far less dangerous  or environmentally damaging than coal.

 

Do you really think the promoters of green energy can compete, dollar for dollar, against the oil, gas, and coal industries and petro-state dollars from places like Saudi Arabia?

 

When considering data you use the dominant trends, not the infrequent outliers.

 

From what I recall of the CO2 claims you are misrepresenting them, but I didn't make those claims so I'll let those responsible deal with that part of your post.