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

[Hummin]

56 minutes ago, novacova said:

I’ve studied and practiced science my entire adult life. What makes many of the posters here different from where I am, I have absolutely no emotion investment in such debate. 

All the arguments here reflects mostly headlines, and what scientists say, is what they have researched is not final, but still in progress of finding out what most likely scenarios we will face. At least we can agree on there will be climate change, and a highly possibility it is escalating because of human activity, which we will have to wait to see if correct.

 

If you studied science and practiced science, you would agree.

[Red Phoenix]

20 hours 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

20 hours ago, Hummin said:

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

Here you go:

Two prominent climate scientists have taken on new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

= = =

You can download their 47-page report here

> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

 

[Tippaporn]

23 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You have deluded yourself with psychobabble.

 

The cult is those people who reject science because it doesn't fit in their mental paradym.

How is what I said psychobabble?  I've pretty much said exactly what you've posted as a reply.  It's just that the reality of it is that the shoe is on the other foot (yours).  The so called climate change deniers look at all of the data and consider all aspects of the issue.  Climate change believers only look at the data that fits and discard, out of hand, anything that doesn't.  Proof of that?  Look no further than what sources can and cannot be used in a debate.

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are deluded.

 

In the 1980s, scientists predicted an increase in global temperatures, which did happen:

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

You are so deep in Denialism that you have lost touch with reality.

Show me the raw data so that I can analyse it myself.  Which you won't because you can't.  Let's just say that I'm not as trusting as you are when it comes to swallowing informational charts without the actual data that produced it.  It's easy to be conned that way.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, novacova said:

I’ve studied and practiced science my entire adult life. What makes many of the posters here different from where I am, I have absolutely no emotion investment in such debate. 

Ok, I'll bite.

 

What science have you studied and practiced?

What are your degrees?

What have you published?

 

In other words, what are your scientific credentials that make your opinions any more credible than the rest of us?

 

I'm taking a break.  I'll be back in a few hours to see if you answer.

[Hummin]

16 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Here you go:

Two prominent climate scientists have taken on new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

= = =

You can download their 47-page report here

> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

 

Im not talking about the new regulations, neither the green shift wich in best case keeps the economic flowing! Im talking about human activity have an impact or not! What politicians do, and those scientists who is in their pockets or those scientists who is in other pockets is irrelevant, what matters, do we have an impact or not? And what if simultaneously happenings occours, what then? 

 

Do human activity have an impact on the environment?

 

What is the solution?

 

Science is clear we are heading for warmer climate, co2 in atmosphere rising record high in humans history, it is most likely great impact from human activity! 

 

What should we do? 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Yet you believe climate science is a religion? seriously?

No, climate science is not a religion. 

 

Climate hysteria is a religion. 

[Bkk Brian]

30 minutes ago, novacova said:

What is wrapping is the blatant hypocrisy as the above poster ranting in the climate wave then going out for a drive burning fossil fuel, swimming and breathing it in and using virtually every day necessities  that rely on fossil fuels. 

Pure deflection and as pointed out numerous times that is the whole point of the IPCC reports for policy makers to introduce measures. Like you say "using virtually every day necessities" until those indispensable everyday things are replaced with climate friendly alternatives we have no choice.

 

Its happening now, you may remember the ozone layer holes, well that's on its way to a remarkable success due to policies that were initiated:

 

On track to full recovery

The ozone layer is on track to recover within four decades, with the global phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals already benefitting efforts to mitigate climate change. 

If current policies remain in place, the ozone layer is expected to recover to 1980 values (before the appearance of the ozone hole) by around 2066 over the Antarctic, by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2040 for the rest of the world. 

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc

[Red Phoenix]

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Im not talking about the new regulations, neither the green shift wich in best case keeps the economic flowing! Im talking about human activity have an impact or not! What politicians do, and those scientists who is in their pockets or thise scientists who is in other pockets is irrelevant, what matters, do we have an impact or not? And what if simultaneously happenings occours, what then? 

 

Do human activity have an impact on the environment?

 

What is the solution?

You obviously didn't look into the 47-page report that these two prominent climate scientists wrote.  The objective of their paper was to provide evidence that the proposed regulations by the EPA are based on seriously flawed presumptions.

But in doing so they also make it clear that the impact of human activity is grossly overrated in the models used to 'prove' a climate emergency.

> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

You obviously didn't look into the 47-page report that these two prominent climate scientists wrote.  The objective of their paper was to provide evidence that the proposed regulations by the EPA are based on seriously flawed presumptions.

But in doing so they also make it clear that the impact of human activity is grossly overrated in the models used to 'prove' a climate emergency.

> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015 (The think tank received extensive financial support from the fossil fuel industry.[3]). William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition

 

You obviously don't look at who funds them

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

You obviously didn't look into the 47-page report that these two prominent climate scientists wrote.  The objective of their paper was to provide evidence that the proposed regulations by the EPA are based on seriously flawed data.

But in doing so they also make it clear that the impact of human activity is grossly overrated in the models used to 'prove' a climate emergency.

> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

He ain't gonna read it because it doesn't fit the climate change belief system and so therefore it must be worthless so why read it as it's a waste of time?  That's the basic mental gymnastics used when considering opposing arguments.  Prejudge the contents without ever looking at the contents so that you can conveniently dismiss it.

[Danderman123]

37 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

How is what I said psychobabble?  I've pretty much said exactly what you've posted as a reply.  It's just that the reality of it is that the shoe is on the other foot (yours).  The so called climate change deniers look at all of the data and consider all aspects of the issue.  Climate change believers only look at the data that fits and discard, out of hand, anything that doesn't.  Proof of that?  Look no further than what sources can and cannot be used in a debate.

Do you believe that atmospheric CO2 is increasing?

 

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

If you respond with verbal diarrhea, then everyone here will understand your psychological situation.

[Danderman123]

21 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, climate science is not a religion. 

 

Climate hysteria is a religion. 

Meanwhile, a Category 4 hurricane is bearing down on Los Angeles.

[Hummin]

18 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

You obviously didn't look into the 47-page report that these two prominent climate scientists wrote.  The objective of their paper was to provide evidence that the proposed regulations by the EPA are based on seriously flawed presumptions.

But in doing so they also make it clear that the impact of human activity is grossly overrated in the models used to 'prove' a climate emergency.

> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

I asked for a web based article earlier, there is no way Im downloading anything from any linked served here. 

[Danderman123]

26 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

You obviously didn't look into the 47-page report that these two prominent climate scientists wrote.  The objective of their paper was to provide evidence that the proposed regulations by the EPA are based on seriously flawed presumptions.

But in doing so they also make it clear that the impact of human activity is grossly overrated in the models used to 'prove' a climate emergency.

> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

Lindzen frequently makes gross errors in his scientific papers, some of which he calls "embarrassing".

 

The Peabody fund throws money at him, oil company money.

[Red Phoenix]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Do you believe that atmospheric CO2 is increasing?

 

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

If you respond with verbal diarrhea, then everyone here will understand your psychological situation.

Chapter #4 on Pages 26 to 29 of the report by Happer & Lindzen, specifically addresses that issue. >

 

Atmospheric CO 2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO 2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
Both of us have special expertise in radiation transfer, the prime mover of the greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Radiation physics explains the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
CO2 becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations because of what in physics is called “saturation.” Each additional 50 ppm increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causesa smaller and smaller change in “radiative forcing,” or in temperature. The saturation is shown in the chart below.
This means that from now on, our emissions from burning fossil fuels will have little impact on global warming. We could double atmospheric CO2 to 840 ppm and have little warming effect.
Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10 to 20 times higher than they are today, shown in the chart.
Further, as a matter of physics, saturation explains why reducing the use of fossil fuels to Net Zero would have a trivial impact on climate, also contradicting the theory it is urgently necessary to eliminate fossil fuel CO2 to avoid catastrophic global warming. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere slightly decreases the amount of long-wave infrared radiation that goes to space, called the “flux.”

[Yellowtail]

22 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015 (The think tank received extensive financial support from the fossil fuel industry.[3]). William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition

 

You obviously don't look at who funds them

Who funds the Climate Scientists you believe? 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Who funds the Climate Scientists you believe? 

Not the fossil fuel industry, who do you think funds them?

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Meanwhile, a Category 4 hurricane is bearing down on Los Angeles.

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

 

Does that not concern you? 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not the fossil fuel industry, who do you think funds them?

I know who funds them, but I was asking you. 

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I know who funds them, but I was asking you. 

So you know and yet ask me.................

 

Be my guest, go ahead and list them all.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 7/28/2023 at 8:27 AM, Social Media said:

Some experts believe that July might well be the warmest month in the past 120,000 years.

There are monthly temperature statistics from 120,000 years ago.  Jesus Christ...

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Do you believe that atmospheric CO2 is increasing?

 

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

If you respond with verbal diarrhea, then everyone here will understand your psychological situation.

I thought you'd pose a difficult question.

CarbonBriefs

The new updates to global CO2 emissions in the GCP substantially revise scientists’ understanding of global emissions trajectories over the past decade. The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

I know that you're expecting demanding a "yes" answer and if it's not yes then you'll slander my character by falsely claiming that my quite reasonable, intelligent, logical and well thought out response is verbal diarrhea and furthermore claim I'm psychologically unstable.  You will then prove my points in previous posts in which I describe climate change believers as exhibiting cultish behaviour.  You're not looking for the truth.  Rather, you're only looking to validate your truth.  Do you understand the difference?

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Chapter #4 on Pages 26 to 29 of the report by Happer & Lindzen, specifically addresses that issue. >

 

Atmospheric CO 2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO 2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
Both of us have special expertise in radiation transfer, the prime mover of the greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Radiation physics explains the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
CO2 becomes a less effective greenhouse gas at higher concentrations because of what in physics is called “saturation.” Each additional 50 ppm increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causesa smaller and smaller change in “radiative forcing,” or in temperature. The saturation is shown in the chart below.
This means that from now on, our emissions from burning fossil fuels will have little impact on global warming. We could double atmospheric CO2 to 840 ppm and have little warming effect.
Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10 to 20 times higher than they are today, shown in the chart.
Further, as a matter of physics, saturation explains why reducing the use of fossil fuels to Net Zero would have a trivial impact on climate, also contradicting the theory it is urgently necessary to eliminate fossil fuel CO2 to avoid catastrophic global warming. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere slightly decreases the amount of long-wave infrared radiation that goes to space, called the “flux.”

Seems to be backed up by what I posted above.

The new updates to global CO2 emissions in the GCP substantially revise scientists’ understanding of global emissions trajectories over the past decade. The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

[Tippaporn]

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Who funds the Climate Scientists you believe? 

Why they're all independent, self-funded scientists with no strings attached to anyone, and each and every one of them as pure in their objectivity as the wind driven snow.

 

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Meanwhile, a Category 4 hurricane is bearing down on Los Angeles.

Are you suggesting it's related to climate change?  If so, please provide hard evidence.  I'll accept none of your biased inferences.  Without hard data supporting such a contention inferences have a value that is less than zero.

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

So you know and yet ask me.................

He knows.  He's asking you if you know.  You either do or don't.  Speak up.

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I thought you'd pose a difficult question.

CarbonBriefs

The new updates to global CO2 emissions in the GCP substantially revise scientists’ understanding of global emissions trajectories over the past decade. The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

I know that you're expecting demanding a "yes" answer and if it's not yes then you'll slander my character by falsely claiming that my quite reasonable, intelligent, logical and well thought out response is verbal diarrhea and furthermore claim I'm psychologically unstable.  You will then prove my points in previous posts in which I describe climate change believers as exhibiting cultish behaviour.  You're not looking for the truth.  Rather, you're only looking to validate your truth.  Do you understand the difference?

Did you read it all? From your own link:

 

"Overall, fossil CO2 emissions are expected to rise by around 4.9% in 2021 with many countries/regions contributing to the recovery in emissions from 2020 lows. Global emissions will almost fully rebound, remaining only around 0.8% below 2019’s record levels, and putting the world on track to likely set a new record for fossil CO2 emissions in 2022."

 

From 2022, their prediction was correct:

Global greenhouse gas emissions at all-time high, study finds

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

He knows.  He's asking you if you know.  You either do or don't.  Speak up.

Yes I know, do you? I also know what he's asking, if he knows he should reveal it.

 

The dynamics of global public research funding on climate change, energy, transport, and industrial decarbonisation

 

The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

 

The misallocation of climate research funding

 

Climate Change Research Grants

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There are monthly temperature statistics from 120,000 years ago.  Jesus Christ...

I Know.  It's hard not to laugh.  I read in some archived stone tablet that the month of July in BC 109,456 was much hotter by a significant degree (pun intended).  It really starts to get ludicrous.