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

[heybruce]

31 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

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

 

Really?  I think that's where the climate change deniers get their answers.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

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

 

Not so long ago she was a full scale denier. A very dishonest person, actually. She claimed that temperatures were going down and to prove it she started with the year 1998.That thing is, that was the year of a massive El Nino, so temperatures were abnormally high that year. Starting with an anomalous baseline instead of a previous trendline is very dishonest. So for several years temperatures were lower than that one year although higher on average than the years that preceded it. And by the time 2022 was over, that anomalous year doesn't even rank in the top 10 hottest years.

She was also endorsing the claims of some who said back then that the earth would be undergoing global cooling starting around 2005. That didn't exactly pan out.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

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

 

Stay the course! 

Still touting the same old tired jibe? As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and to no avail, there is a huge installed base of fossil fuels power the world economy, So it will take time. Unless, of course, you possess a magic wand that will replace polluting forms of power the cleaner ones. Alreadym solar and wind are far cheaper to use for generating power than is coal and are also outcompeting gas peaker plants. And this before the cost of externalities generated by fossil fuel. Now with low cost storage batteries coming on line, their edge will be even greater.

[Danderman123]

3 hours 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. 

 

 

 

There is a scientific process, during which individual scientists can participate. But, writing op-eds is not part of that process.

[Danderman123]

On 8/1/2023 at 9:50 PM, bignok said:

Given the dodgy data prior to 1980 I wouldnt trust any of it

What makes data prior to 1980 "dodgy"?

[Danderman123]

On 8/1/2023 at 4:10 PM, Keep Right said:

The sky is falling, the sky is falling......I have to laugh every time I read one of these articles from the climate alarmists. Now we read that July is set to be the worlds warmest on record.......but records have only been kept for maybe hundreds of years but the earth is projected to be 4.5 to 5 billion years old. And new reports keep coming out that the Antarctic was once a tropical rain forest.

 

The current observable sample size (warmest on record) is grossly inaccurate to make any relevant statistical observation and to base one's conclusion on this July's temperature is unethical and deceptive.

This is a tired old argument used by people who have little understanding of the problem.

 

It is true that during the history of Earth, there have been wild climate extremes. But, the reality is that our civilization was developed to exist in a certain temperature range. Outside of that range, and mass numbers die.

They won't care that it was 10 degrees warmer in the time of the dinosaurs.

 

If you go out, and its very hot, if someone tells you it was a hotter a million years ago, that doesn't help you.

 

And that's your post in a nutshell.

[Danderman123]

On 7/29/2023 at 5:41 PM, bignok said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

 

 

A bunch of engineers and geologists who were dead wrong in 2012. The impact of CO2 on climate is well established.

 

I know some of the signatories quite well, and they don't know anything about atmospheric physics.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

A bunch of engineers and geologists who were dead wrong in 2012. The impact of CO2 on climate is well established.

 

I know some of the signatories quite well, and they don't know anything about atmospheric physics.

From the descriptions of their job titles, it's clear that none of the signatories were climatologists, and it looks like many of them weren't even scientists.

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

From the descriptions of their job titles, it's clear that none of the signatories were climatologists, and it looks like many of them weren't even scientists.

No, most were engineers, with some geologists on the list. Many were quite famous, but quite clueless about climate.

[Danderman123]

5 hours 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. 

Let's put it a different way: CO2 levels are higher than at any point in time since the emergence of Homo Sapiens.

[Yellowtail]

On 8/11/2023 at 10:59 PM, Danderman123 said:

No, most were engineers, with some geologists on the list. Many were quite famous, but quite clueless about climate.

So only people whose jobs do not rely on climate change then? 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So only people whose jobs do not rely on climate change then? 

If a doctor proposes a course of treatment for you, would a rational person go to an engineer for a second opinion?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

So only people whose jobs do not rely on climate change then?

Easy to see where you are going with this: You will ignore the science of atmospheric physics, since everyone in that field "have jobs that rely on climate change". So, you listen to cranks in other fields, who are largely clueless about atmospheric physics.

 

Just like someone who disagrees with medical science, and has an accountant perform heart surgery for them.

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

"Thanks for the fact-free rant."

 

One sample said 2.1 million years. 

 

And a later, "longer" (does this mean deeper?) sample said 3.6 million years. 

 

So apparently the first "scientist" was proven wrong by the second "scientist", using the same method, correct? Yet we are supposed to assume both are 100% correct, is that right?

 

Just believe the "science" du jour.

 

 

 

Nope.

 

This is very simple, so I will type slowly so you understand.

 

One scientist had a sample that was 2.1 million years old and reported the results.

 

Another scientist had an older sample and reported the results.

 

This is presumably confusing  for you. Imagine if you actually had to read a scientific paper instead of having your internet friends provide you with a distorted synopsis.

[metisdead]

A post contravening our Community Standards has been removed.

[Bkk Brian]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

Is this guy funny as well, concentrations of Carbon dioxide are at the highest in at least 2 million years

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

26 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I have to provide a link that prove 2.1 million years ago is a least ten years ago? 

 

Okay, I think the chart shows clearly that 2.1 million years ago was at least ten years ago. I've have approximated both ten years ago and 2.1 billion years ago on the graph for your convenience. 

 

 

Ancient Deepsea Shells Reveal 66 Million Years Of Carbon Dioxide Levels - Texas A&M Today (tamu.edu)

 

 

 

 

Its the highest levels of Carbon Dioxide for at least 2 million years not 10. There are a number of studies that have markers at 2 million years up, there are none that have it at 10 years up.

 

Keep trolling

Edited August 13, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

One "scientist" "proved" that the last time the Earth's CO2 level was this high was 2.1M years ago. 

 

Another "scientist" "proved" that the last time the Earth's CO2 level was this high was 4M years ago. 

 

Both can't be true. 

 

You guys are funny. 

They both can be true, as they are using samples from different periods. If a third scientist had a sample from 10 million years ago, they might have a different conclusion.

 

You are having a cognitive problem.

 

Because you are overlooking the main issue - that current CO2 levels are really, really high, and the planet is warming.

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I have to provide a link that prove 2.1 million years ago is a least ten years ago? 

 

Okay, I think the chart shows clearly that 2.1 million years ago was at least ten years ago. I've have approximated both ten years ago and 2.1 billion years ago on the graph for your convenience. 

 

 

Ancient Deepsea Shells Reveal 66 Million Years Of Carbon Dioxide Levels - Texas A&M Today (tamu.edu)

 

 

 

 

Both you - and your internet friend who sent you the graph - are unable to understand the graph's message, which is that current CO2 levels are really high.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Where do you not understand "in at least ten years"

10 years ago is when the mainstream Climate Change Deniers gave up, leaving a handful of deadenders.

 

There are a few people today who deny that:

 

CO2 levels are really high;

 

Humans are generating this excess CO2;

 

The excess CO2 is causing global heating.

 

Not too many deny that anymore.

[Scott]

Posts violating community guidelines by trolling and engaging in nonsensical debates have been removed.  Continue at your own peril.  

 

[placeholder]

On 8/10/2023 at 4:59 PM, Yellowtail said:

One "expert" we are all supposed to bet our lives on say the highest is two million years, and the other "expert" we are supposed to bet our lives on says three million years.

 

Editing to add a third expert we are supposed to bet our lives on says 3.6 million years.

 

Is that just a rounding error or what? 

 

No, it's not a rounding error. Here is the info again with fuller quotes. You'll note that in the earlier paper that established levels were lower going back at least 2.1 million years it specifically notes this: "This finding means that researchers will need to look back further in time for an analog to modern day climate change." In other words no CO2 levels were found that matched modern day levels.  So, no contradiction between this study and the one going back 3.6 million years. 

Carbon Dioxide Higher Today Than Last 2.1 Million Years

The authors show that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million; but today, CO2 is at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher. This finding means that researchers will need to look back further in time for an analog to modern day climate change.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm#:~:text=

*

 

In fact, later research has extended that all the way back t0 3.6 million years ago where finally comparable CO2 levels were found.

 

Carbon dioxide levels are now higher than at anytime in the past 3.6 million years

The atmospheric burden of CO2 is now comparable to where it was during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period around 3.6 million years ago, when concentrations of carbon dioxide ranged from about 380 to 450 parts per million. During that time sea level was about 78 feet higher than today, the average temperature was 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra. 

https://research.noaa.gov/2021/04/07/despite-pandemic-shutdowns-carbon-dioxide-and-methane-surged-in-2020/

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

On 8/11/2023 at 4:20 PM, Yellowtail said:

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

 

Stay the course! 

You continue to post nonsense here.

 

Given your ignorance of science, you can't contribute anything positive here. Nothing you post about climate change helps anyone.

 

Rather than rely on fringe scientists paid by the oil industry, how about doing some real research. If you don't think that excess CO2 contributes to global warming, can you tell us the planet Venus is so hot?

Edited August 18, 2023 by Danderman123

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You continue to post nonsense here.

Continue? I posted that a week ago, and here you are baiting me. 

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Given your ignorance of science, you can't contribute anything positive here. Nothing you post about climate change helps anyone.

What was your major? In any event, I have not seen anything of substance from you. And because you are not able to actually formulate a coherent argument you attack me. 

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Rather than rely on fringe scientists paid by the oil industry, how about doing some real research. If you don't think that excess CO2 contributes to global warming, can you tell us the planet Venus is so hot?

Why the dishonesty? What "fringe scientists paid by the oil industry" have I sited? None. 

 

If you had been paying attention, you would know that I agree with that the Earth is warming, that the warming is a result rising CO2 levels, and that the CO2 levels are rising in large part to human activity. I have stated this clearly any number of times.

 

You attacked me for saying: "And with all the silly alternative energy and social engineering, we are continuing it generate more CO2 each year."

 

Now you can attack me, and call me a fool, you can claim that I am a shill for the oil industry, you can call me a troll, and you can get my posts deleted, but what you can't do is show that the statement I made is false. 

[Red Phoenix]

The Klimate Change Hoax Exposed

1,200 scientists and professionals from across the world led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever declare:
"There is no climate emergency."

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf

[Hummin]

33 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The Klimate Change Hoax Exposed

1,200 scientists and professionals from across the world led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever declare:
"There is no climate emergency."

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf

do you have another source than a download? Web article? 

[placeholder]

39 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The Klimate Change Hoax Exposed

1,200 scientists and professionals from across the world led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever declare:
"There is no climate emergency."

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf

"Less than 1% of the names listed describe themselves as climatologists or climate scientists...

According to an independent 2019 count of the declaration's signatories, 21% were engineers, many linked to the fossil fuel industry. Others were lobbyists, and some even worked as fishermen or airline pilots."

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/16/fact-check-did-1200-climate-experts-sign-declaration-denying-climate-emergency

 

Various members of CLINTEL’s list of ambassadors, and its extended list of signatories, have connections to libertarian free-market groups with a history of climate science denial, including the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.⁷ All three organisations are members of the Koch-funded Atlas Network.^8 9

^{https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/}

[owl sees all]

47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If you had been paying attention, you would know that I agree with that the Earth is warming, that the warming is a result rising CO2 levels, and that the CO2 levels are rising in large part to human activity. I have stated this clearly any number of times.

I don't fully agree with you.

 

The climate of the Earth has always been in a state of change. There are macro cycles that take 100k years to cycle through. Along the way there are fluctuations; smaller cycles. And even micro-cycles of 100 years or so. Maybe less.

 

CO2 is an essential compound. It is food for plants/trees, and they in turn give out what we need; oxygen. Man's contribution to the climate on Earth is insignificant. That is not to say we should continue to dump our filth in the oceans and fowl or lands.

 

The two biggest influences on climate, is the sun and the oceans.

[Bkk Brian]

46 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The Klimate Change Hoax Exposed

1,200 scientists and professionals from across the world led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever declare:
"There is no climate emergency."

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf

You need to do much better than that.

 

Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever was an engineer, nothing to do with climate and he's since joined the The Heartland Institute. 

 

"an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking. Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans. Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

 

The website you link to Clintel:

"CLINTEL, established in September of this year, was founded by Guus Berkhout, an engineer who has spent much of his career working in the oil and gas industry. Not only is he not a climate scientist, but he clearly has an interest in halting any laws dedicated to reducing emissions."

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/clintel-s-bias/article_e82306ce-f52f-11e9-b6a9-73955f921ab5.html

 

As to the actual pdf download, its a one page letter with zero substance and non credible claims.

 

"The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change. The letter claims, for example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes.

And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.

Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science."

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

 

[placeholder]

Just now, owl sees all said:

I don't fully agree with you.

 

The climate of the Earth has always been in a state of change. There are macro cycles that take 100k years to cycle through. Along the way there are fluctuations; smaller cycles. And even micro-cycles of 100 years or so. Maybe less.

 

CO2 is an essential compound. It is food for plants/trees, and they in turn give out what we need; oxygen. Man's contribution to the climate on Earth is insignificant. That is not to say we should continue to dump our filth in the oceans and fowl or lands.

 

The two biggest influences on climate, is the sun and the oceans.

Lots of assertions. No evidence provided. Typical of denialists.