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

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"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/}

If they instead described themselves as climatologists or climate scientists, you would think differently? 

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

If they instead described themselves as climatologists or climate scientists, you would think differently? 

 

 

The fact is that they weren't climatologists. Stop trying to introduce contrary-to-fact hypotheses into the discussion. They are pointless.

[owl sees all]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

Ever heard of common sense?!

 

And there was me thinking the science had been settled about 50 years agom when the ice age was approaching fast. But no! It wasn't settled. Slight miscalculation. But it is now. Global warming is here. Science is settled once again.

 

This nonsense is just another stepping stone, for the dark rulers, to advance their objective.

 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Ever heard of common sense?!

 

And there was me thinking the science had been settled about 50 years agom when the ice age was approaching fast. But no! It wasn't settled. Slight miscalculation. But it is now. Global warming is here. Science is settled once again.

 

This nonsense is just another stepping stone, for the dark rulers, to advance their objective.

 

Aren't you the person who predicted fiat currency was going to fail several years ago? 

Anyway, your idea of common sense is uncommon nonsense. And your lack any real knowledge of the situation is obvious. Clearly it consists of memes and other dubious assertions that you've encountered elsewhere. Take, for example, your assertion about Ice age predictions. Denialists repeatedly make the false claim you've adopted. What follows is what valid evidence looks like:

The Myth of the 1970 Scientific Consensus on Global Cooling.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26220900

 

 The small fraction of studies predicting cooling received a lot of media attention in the 1970s. The idea of a forthcoming ice age made for great headlines. The effect of this disproportionate media coverage persists today, as some people and organizations continue to perpetuate the idea that an ice age was predicted in the 1970s.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, 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.

The kindest analysis of your post would be that you didn't lie (AFAIK).  You also didn't offer any analysis bundling your mostly unrelated facts into a cogent rebuttal of .... well anything.

 

Thankfully you are of course entitled to an opinion. However when engaging in a discussion of the relative value of opinions, facts and logic must be brought to bear.

 

You offer no logical refutation of the impact of rising CO₂ on Earth's climate.

 

You are of course entitled to an opinion.  However when engaged in a discussion on the relative merits of differing opinions, facts and logict must be brought to bear.

[owl sees all]

6 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The kindest analysis of your post would be that you didn't lie (AFAIK).  You also didn't offer any analysis bundling your mostly unrelated facts into a cogent rebuttal of .... well anything.

 

You offer no logical refutation of the impact of rising CO₂ on Earth's climate.

CO2 follows the sun. Not the other way round.

[gamb00ler]

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

CO2 follows the sun. Not the other way round.

How does that explain an overall rise in the CO₂ percentage of the atmosphere when averaged over all days and seasons?

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

CO2 follows the sun. Not the other way round.

So why is CO2 increasing and solar activity decreasing?

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, 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.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentration is significant. Over the last 20 years, CO2 has increased from 280 to 400+ ppm, almost entirely from human sources.

 

Natural climate change is real, but absent human production of pollutants, nature would be producing cooling. But natural cooling has been subsumed by all that CO2 produced by humans, and the planet is warming.

[Danderman123]

21 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

CO2 follows the sun. Not the other way round.

Nope.

 

If you disagree, please explain why the planet Venus is so hot. 

 

Yes, it's hotter than Mercury. Why?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

Ever heard of common sense?!

 

And there was me thinking the science had been settled about 50 years agom when the ice age was approaching fast. But no! It wasn't settled. Slight miscalculation. But it is now. Global warming is here. Science is settled once again.

 

This nonsense is just another stepping stone, for the dark rulers, to advance their objective.

 

Your internet friends have misinformed you.

 

At best, some scientists informally stated that, if the short term cooling trend of the 1970s were to continue indefinitely, then the planet would cool.

 

But that was conditional, not definitive.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

If they instead described themselves as climatologists or climate scientists, you would think differently? 

 

 

A bunch of people who knew little about atmospheric physics. 

 

Why would you pay attention to them?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

If they instead described themselves as climatologists or climate scientists, you would think differently? 

 

The signatories don't know much about Climate Change. Why pay any attention to them?

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

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

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. 

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. 

The problem is your tagline:

 

"Stay the course! "

 

It seems you are okay with dumping mass amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

[placeholder]

3 hours 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.

 

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. 

The problem is that you ask questions like this one in response to Danderman

 

On 8/13/2023 at 11:12 AM, Yellowtail said:

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

As though non-climatologists' finding were somehow more trustworthy because their jobs, whatever they are, don't, as you put it "depend" on climate change. As though climatologists' research was influenced by venial motives because without climate change they wouldn't have a job. So, yes, it's not unreasonable to conclude that your protestations aren't sincere. And  if we need more evidence there's this:

 

 

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, 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.

"Man's contribution to the climate on Earth is insignificant."

 

Then why have CO2 levels increased 50% since the start of the industrial revolution?  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

[Lucky Bones]

That was July.

This is now August.

Stuck my head out the window two minutes ago.

Very cold (7 degrees) and raining.

Global warming? Where I currently am, bring it on.????????

[Ralf001]

That was July.

This is now August.

Stuck my head out the window two minutes ago.

Slightly cold (27 degrees) and no rain.

Global warming? Where I currently am, bring it on.????????

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Lucky Bones said:

That was July.

This is now August.

Stuck my head out the window two minutes ago.

Very cold (7 degrees) and raining.

Global warming? Where I currently am, bring it on.????????

 

2 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

That was July.

This is now August.

Stuck my head out the window two minutes ago.

Slightly cold (27 degrees) and no rain.

Global warming? Where I currently am, bring it on.????????

Trolling with two identities?

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Lucky Bones said:

That was July.

This is now August.

Stuck my head out the window two minutes ago.

Very cold (7 degrees) and raining.

Global warming? Where I currently am, bring it on.????????

Weather is not the same as climate.

[metisdead]

Some posts contravening our Community Standards have been removed:

 

• Post in a truthful manner and do not post defamatory comments

[Danderman123]

57 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Trolling with two identities?

What mental condition would prompt someone to generate 2 different identities here to post misleading thoughts about climate change?

 

For that matter, no one here has posted a single piece of data that disputes that human produced CO2 is heating the atmosphere.

[Danderman123]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

 

Climate change deniers, please explain why this chart is wrong.

 

 

[owl sees all]

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your internet friends have misinformed you.

 

At best, some scientists informally stated that, if the short term cooling trend of the 1970s were to continue indefinitely, then the planet would cool.

 

But that was conditional, not definitive.

Not so much internet in the 1970s D23.

 

It was all over the BBC for a year or so. We were all rushing out to buy fur coats.

[gamb00ler]

3 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Not so much internet in the 1970s D23.

 

It was all over the BBC for a year or so. We were all rushing out to buy fur coats.

Like all human endeavors, "science" began with very few facts but was driven by human curiosity.  Slowly, the human race has collected a huge store of scientific knowledge.  Climate science didn't begin any differently, so many initial analysis were off the mark and even dead wrong.

 

Are you one of those that don't really understand how humans are continually refining their "scientific" description of how the  physical world works?  Are you trapped in the '70's?

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Like all human endeavors, "science" began with very few facts but was driven by human curiosity.  Slowly, the human race has collected a huge store of scientific knowledge.  Climate science didn't begin any differently, so many initial analysis were off the mark and even dead wrong.

 

Are you one of those that don't really understand how humans are continually refining their "scientific" description of how the  physical world works?  Are you trapped in the '70's?

As pointed out above, even in the '70's a big majority of scientific studies supported the fact that the global warming was in store due to the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. 

[Danderman123]

37 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Not so much internet in the 1970s D23.

 

It was all over the BBC for a year or so. We were all rushing out to buy fur coats.

That's what happens when you read mass media stories without some understanding of science.

 

Now that you have internet, the oil companies hire trolls to send you misinformation about climate change, and you believe that stuff.

 

The way to determine whether you understand atmospheric physics, or if you just rely on the misinformation sent to you is for you to answer this question:

 

Why is the stratosphere cooling?

 

You can answer in several ways:

 

You can say "I don't know".

 

You can avoid answering, which means you are trolling.

 

Or you can provide the correct answer. Your internet friends won't give you that answer, sorry.

 

Up to you. if you decide to bail without answering, bye-bye!

[Yellowtail]

12 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The problem is your tagline:

 

"Stay the course! "

 

It seems you are okay with dumping mass amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The "Stay the course" was meant to be facetious. And you quoted me out of context to pretend like I have said something I have not. 

 

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

 

And again, 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. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Not so much internet in the 1970s D23.

 

It was all over the BBC for a year or so. We were all rushing out to buy fur coats.

This continued regurgitating of debunked trash misinterpreting science for political gain is getting tiresome.

 

Put up links or put a sock in it.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Not so much internet in the 1970s D23.

 

It was all over the BBC for a year or so. We were all rushing out to buy fur coats.

Your entire opinion on Global Warming is based on Newsweek publishing one article about global cooling 50 years ago.