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

[heybruce]

 

9 hours 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.”

"Adding more CO₂ to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ increase, the addition of extra CO₂ becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise."  https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/

 

Interesting thing about that part of the report you reference.  It states:

 

"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 causes a smaller and smaller change in “radiative forcing,” or in temperature. The saturation is shown in
the chart below."  https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

 

However if you click on the small "64" at the end of this statement, which should lead you to their source for the claim, it returns you to the same report.  Talk about circular logic!

 

I did a quick search and could find no credible source that supports the saturation claim.  However based on my understanding of how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas I can see how, at a certain level, it can reach a concentration at which the atmosphere becomes opaque to the wavelengths "blocked" by CO2 (it's actually the absorption and re-emision of discrete wavelengths by the electrons of the CO2 molecules).  However that does not mean that the full effect of the CO2 warming has been reached--you don't immediately become warm when you put on a coat, it takes a while to get the insulating effect.  Plus the additional warming of the climate caused by the CO2 will lead to increasing levels of methane as permafrost melts and vegetation rots.  This will increase additional greenhouse gases.

 

I won't speculate further, that is just my skeptical engineering take on the matter.  As I posted earlier, I'm not a scientist.  However I will point out that all evidence shows that the long term trend is to further warming, CO2 has credibly been identified as a driver, and your single outlier source has its flaws.

 

[Hummin]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

"Adding more CO₂ to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ increase, the addition of extra CO₂ becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise."  https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/

 

Interesting thing about that part of the report you reference.  It states:

 

"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 causes a smaller and smaller change in “radiative forcing,” or in temperature. The saturation is shown in
the chart below."  https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

 

However if you click on the small "64" at the end of this statement, which should lead you to their source for the claim, it returns you to the same report.  Talk about circular logic!

 

I did a quick search and could find no credible source that supports the saturation claim.  However based on my understanding of how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas I can see how, at a certain level, it can reach a concentration at which the atmosphere becomes opaque to the wavelengths "blocked" by CO2 (it's actually the absorption and re-emision of discrete wavelengths by the electrons of the CO2 molecules).  However that does not mean that the full effect of the CO2 warming has been reached--you don't immediately become warm when you put on a coat, it takes a while to get the insulating effect.  Plus the additional warming of the climate caused by the CO2 will lead to increasing levels of methane as permafrost melts and vegetation rots.  This will increase additional greenhouse gases.

 

I won't speculate further, that is just my skeptical engineering take on the matter.  As I posted earlier, I'm not a scientist.  However I will point out that all evidence shows that the long term trend is to further warming, CO2 has credibly been identified as a driver, and your single outlier source has its flaws.

 

Not to forget how much the ocean absorb of co2 and heat.

 

The denial becomes a sad comics

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

please show a link demonstrating flat CO2 levels.

LOL.  Danderman123, it's in the same link I provided which you yourself used to grab a quote from.  Twice, I might add.  There's a pretty graph showing that it's been relatively flat for a decade.

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Right, it's like hysteria about nuclear war.  Scientist say it would be bad, but they can't prove it.

Try using an analogy that's actually equivalent.

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

In other words, because you don't know how temperatures in the past were determined and you haven't bothered to check, that means they can't be trusted.

 

Is that your point?

Try using some common sense.  Anyone who makes the claim that this past July was the hottest in the last 120,000 years must know what the temperature was in every July over the last 120,000 years.  Now I know science makes advances, granted ever so slowly, but this beggars belief, don't you think?  And common sense would tell you that scientists are not Gods, despite the fact they attempt to convey the perception that they're infallible regarding their conclusions.

If you wish to trust them implicitly and unquestioningly then that is your right, heybruce.  But don't expect others to be as trusting.  And certainly don't ridicule others simply because they don't immediately supplicate themselves at the feet of scientists.  Specifically your group of scientists.  For the consensus amongst scientists is not unanimous by a long shot.  But I do understand that 'your' scientists are correct and all of the dissenting scientists are wrong and God has spoken.

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

So, you listen to witches or random people on the street?

 

What is wrong with you?

Now that smacks of a God complex.  To even suggest that scientists are human, and therefore fallible, is sheer heresy.  I say burn Hummin at the stake!!!

[save the frogs]

12 hours ago, Hummin said:

I would be careful to believe in Scientists, they could happen to be wrong. Just saying

But the folks in power will be investing a lot of money into new alternative technologies that will produce fewer emissions.

Even housing ... we might see some houses built from hemp? 

Many industries will be completely revamped.

 

EU is working on a law where mobile phones need to be able to be repaired by a layperson ... so people stop upgrading so easily. This hurts the economy. That means elites lose money. 

 

Why would they invest so much money to completely change to new technologies based on flimsy science?

 

Countries in the Middle East need to completely re-invent their entire economies to shift away from fossil fuels or their countries will go broke. Again, why risk going through so much economic upheaval based on flimsy science? 

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

59 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  Danderman123, it's in the same link I provided which you yourself used to grab a quote from.  Twice, I might add.  There's a pretty graph showing that it's been relatively flat for a decade.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-hit-record-high-in-2022/

 

Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels hit record high in 2022

 

Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement have increased by 1.0% in 2022, new estimates suggest, hitting a new record high of 36.6bn tonnes of CO2

[Danderman123]

59 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now that smacks of a God complex.  To even suggest that scientists are human, and therefore fallible, is sheer heresy.  I say burn Hummin at the stake!!!

You don't trust scientists, but when convenient, you post links to their work.

 

But, I am okay with your conclusion that science is wrong and that you know more than the scientific consensus. That tells us all we need to know about you.

 

It's like talking to a Flat Earther.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

The cult climate change deniers have been out in force with their latest debunked nonsense that once the atmosphere becomes saturated with CO2 adding more CO2 will not have a significant impact on the planet's temperature. There is zero scientific evidence for this.

 

The idea that CO2 can become saturated is based on the assumption that there is a limit to how much heat a gas can trap. However, this is not the case. CO2 can absorb an infinite amount of heat, and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more heat it will trap. In addition, even if the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere were to become saturated, this would not mean that CO2 would no longer contribute to climate change. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are also increasing in the atmosphere, and they are much more potent than CO2

 

Other quacks then go onto claim it will be good for plants but miss out the dire consequences for plant life. Nutrients, temperature and water being just a few.

 

New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’

A 16-year study found that we’re at a point where more CO2 won’t keep increasing plant production, but higher temperatures will decrease it

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants

 

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

How Climate Change Will Affect Plants

Elevated levels of CO2 from climate change may enable plants to benefit from the carbon fertilization effect and use less water to grow, but it’s not all good news for plants. It’s more complicated than that, because climate change is also impacting other factors critical to plants’ growth, such as nutrients, temperature, and water.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The cult climate change deniers have been out in force with their latest debunked nonsense that once the atmosphere becomes saturated with CO2 adding more CO2 will not have a significant impact on the planet's temperature. There is zero scientific evidence for this.

 

The idea that CO2 can become saturated is based on the assumption that there is a limit to how much heat a gas can trap. However, this is not the case. CO2 can absorb an infinite amount of heat, and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more heat it will trap. In addition, even if the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere were to become saturated, this would not mean that CO2 would no longer contribute to climate change. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are also increasing in the atmosphere, and they are much more potent than CO2

 

Other quacks then go onto claim it will be good for plants but miss out the dire consequences for plant life. Nutrients, temperature and water being just a few.

 

New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’

A 16-year study found that we’re at a point where more CO2 won’t keep increasing plant production, but higher temperatures will decrease it

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants

 

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

How Climate Change Will Affect Plants

Elevated levels of CO2 from climate change may enable plants to benefit from the carbon fertilization effect and use less water to grow, but it’s not all good news for plants. It’s more complicated than that, because climate change is also impacting other factors critical to plants’ growth, such as nutrients, temperature, and water.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

The Deniers have not heard about the planet Venus.

[Danderman123]

14 hours 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.”

Because neither you nor this Lindzen have ever heard of the planet Venus. You should check it out. Afterwards you won't make such clueless posts.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Try using some common sense.  Anyone who makes the claim that this past July was the hottest in the last 120,000 years must know what the temperature was in every July over the last 120,000 years.  Now I know science makes advances, granted ever so slowly, but this beggars belief, don't you think?  And common sense would tell you that scientists are not Gods, despite the fact they attempt to convey the perception that they're infallible regarding their conclusions.

If you wish to trust them implicitly and unquestioningly then that is your right, heybruce.  But don't expect others to be as trusting.  And certainly don't ridicule others simply because they don't immediately supplicate themselves at the feet of scientists.  Specifically your group of scientists.  For the consensus amongst scientists is not unanimous by a long shot.  But I do understand that 'your' scientists are correct and all of the dissenting scientists are wrong and God has spoken.

First, I thought the discussion was regarding average temperature ranges, not specific peak temperatures.  I don't know if that can be done.

 

There are a number of sources that show that well over 90% of climate scientists agree that man's contribution to global warming is significant.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

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

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

First, I thought the discussion was regarding average temperature ranges, not specific peak temperatures.  I don't know if that can be done.

 

There are a number of sources that show that well over 90% of climate scientists agree that man's contribution to global warming is significant.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

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

Down from 99% then? 

 

In any event, we never seem to get clear definition of what a climate scientist is, what qualifies them to be a climate scientist or how many of them there are.

 

In any event, 10% is not an insignificant number, and it seems to be growing. 

[Danderman123]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Down from 99% then? 

 

In any event, we never seem to get clear definition of what a climate scientist is, what qualifies them to be a climate scientist or how many of them there are.

 

In any event, 10% is not an insignificant number, and it seems to be growing. 

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

 

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken. Among the most cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.

 

It is "extremely likely"^[11] that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases"^[11] in the atmosphere.^[12] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.

[Danderman123]

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Down from 99% then? 

 

In any event, we never seem to get clear definition of what a climate scientist is, what qualifies them to be a climate scientist or how many of them there are.

 

In any event, 10% is not an insignificant number, and it seems to be growing. 

Back in the 1980s, the oil companies decided to fight the scientific consensus on climate change by sowing doubt rather than a direct challenge. So, there is no overall hypothesis to explain the climate, just a handful of Deniers sowing doubt.

 

And it seems that your posts follow the same pattern, all doubt, no facts.

 

Let me give you the same Troll test I give Deniers. 

 

Why is the Stratosphere cooling?

 

This is a significant question because Deniers cannot answer it.

 

You can say "I don't know", but that means you are clueless on this subject.

 

You can ignore the question, but that tells us that your programming has a bug.

 

Or you can try to answer and explain why the Stratosphere is cooling.

 

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed. 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Back in the 1980s, the oil companies decided to fight the scientific consensus on climate change by sowing doubt rather than a direct challenge. So, there is no overall hypothesis to explain the climate, just a handful of Deniers sowing doubt.

 

And it seems that your posts follow the same pattern, all doubt, no facts.

 

Let me give you the same Troll test I give Deniers. 

 

Why is the Stratosphere cooling?

 

This is a significant question because Deniers cannot answer it.

 

You can say "I don't know", but that means you are clueless on this subject.

 

You can ignore the question, but that tells us that your programming has a bug.

 

Or you can try to answer and explain why the Stratosphere is cooling.

 

You're either not paying attention, or you are a liar. I have never claimed the Earth is not warming, or that it not at least in large part human activity. I have in fact stated the opposite any number of times. 

 

Who funds the scientists you believe?

 

You can say "I don't know", but that means you are clueless on this subject.

 

You can ignore the question, which is likely because it's what you generally do, 

 

Or you can try to answer and explain how the "scientists" you believe are funded, and why we should believe them and not the "scientists" that disagree with them. 

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Down from 99% then? 

 

In any event, we never seem to get clear definition of what a climate scientist is, what qualifies them to be a climate scientist or how many of them there are.

 

In any event, 10% is not an insignificant number, and it seems to be growing. 

They get to be called a climatologists by getting their original research about the climate published in scientific journals. And do you really need to be told what the definition of a climatologist is?  Does the name not give you a hint as to what it is these scientists study?

 

Once again, as elsewhere, you trot out the use of "seem" as in "In any event, 10% is not an insignificant number, and it seems to be growing." Will you provide any evidence to support that skepticism in the scientific community is growing?

Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).^[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change#:~:text=Myers et al.%2C 2021,-Krista Myers led&text=Depending on expertise%2C between 91,climate scientists%2C 98.7% agreed.

And here's a link to an abstract of the article

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774

 

 

You'll also note in the wikipidia entry links to lots more studies. And you'll note that the trend shows that consensus has grown  over time. 

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I read the entire article.  And in words and charts it states that CO2 levels have been pretty much flat:

The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

You do understand there are fluctuations from year to year?  The trend over the last decade, though, is as stated in the article.  I think you may be overly excited over a prediction actually coming true after so many major predictions never coming close to materialising?  A small victory for you?

What major scientific prediction haven't come close to materializing? And what don't you understand about the fact the even if the level of CO being pumped into the atmosphere hasn't risen, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase?  The fact is that the IPCC said back when that there was a carbon budget of 500 gigatonnes that could be pumpeded into the atmosphere. Any more than that and the global average temperature would rise over 1.5% centigrade. Back then the IPCC said emission had to be reduced progressively by 7% if exceeding that carbon budget was to be avoided. Now that percentage is higher.

[placeholder]

36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You're either not paying attention, or you are a liar. I have never claimed the Earth is not warming, or that it not at least in large part human activity. I have in fact stated the opposite any number of times. 

 

Who funds the scientists you believe?

 

You can say "I don't know", but that means you are clueless on this subject.

 

You can ignore the question, which is likely because it's what you generally do, 

 

Or you can try to answer and explain how the "scientists" you believe are funded, and why we should believe them and not the "scientists" that disagree with them. 

What a ridiculous question.  Why is this information any more pertinent than asking where scientists working in other fields get their money from? To believe that such funding affects their findings, you would also have to believe that there is huge and wide ranging conspiracy among scientific journals to coordinate false reports in a way that they don't contradict each other. Got any evidence to support that?

 

[ozimoron]

17 hours ago, novacova said:

Totally irrelevant to the broad scope of the subject. The entire platitude of the individuals on this thread is that humans are mostly responsible for the ever changing climate, are solely in it for their pleasure of arguing and contempt. No rational or reasoning, because it’s a cherished religion of followers, or cult as another put it. If one cannot educate themselves at this point in their lives or at the very least have civil calm discussion, then it’s just a useless waste. Anyways…later

I hate to burst your bubble but humans are directly responsible for almost 100% of the carbon dioxide and therefore 100% of the warming. Global warming is ONLY occurring because of rising carbon dioxide levels. This has been shown here many, many times but it seems some can't grasp 19th century science.

[owl sees all]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You don't trust scientists, but when convenient, you post links to their work.

Trust 'scientists'!!! How can we?? Many are compromised. Many are beholden to their sponsors, or grant givers; and could not tell the truth even if they wanted to.

 

Much of the printed stuff in journals is either made up or deliberately obfuscatationary. Only have to look back over the last few years for that.

 

A graph - posted on this thread a few days ago - shows there is disagreement among 'scientists'.

 

 

Now if the blues are correct then the others are wrong. And if the others are right well,,,,!

I take it that they all had access to the same data.

 

I don't know if the Earth is warming up. It was very hot for a 6 week period in April and May this year. As for the climate changing; I'll accept that. Seeing as climate is - and always has been - changing.

 

But where I disagree, with many, is that I do not believe it is man's endeavours that are causing the changes. Our interventions into the natural are insignificant.

 

I reckon all the bods spouting this clap-trap about humans responsible for climate change and global warming, would be better of directing their energies to try stopping corporations fowling the land, and dumping their filth in the rivers and oceans.

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

You're either not paying attention, or you are a liar. I have never claimed the Earth is not warming, or that it not at least in large part human activity. I have in fact stated the opposite any number of times. 

 

Who funds the scientists you believe?

 

You can say "I don't know", but that means you are clueless on this subject.

 

You can ignore the question, which is likely because it's what you generally do, 

 

Or you can try to answer and explain how the "scientists" you believe are funded, and why we should believe them and not the "scientists" that disagree with them. 

I have answered that specific question in a prior post, but since I am not a troll, I will answer again.

 

Tens of thousands of researchers are funded by an assortment of public and private organizations. The vast majority of these researchers are grad students, who are famous for being poorly paid. Researchers apply for grants, those whose work cannot be duplicated by other researchers generally don't get funded.

 

Now, back to my question: why is the stratosphere cooling?

[Danderman123]

22 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Trust 'scientists'!!! How can we?? Many are compromised. Many are beholden to their sponsors, or grant givers; and could not tell the truth even if they wanted to.

 

Much of the printed stuff in journals is either made up or deliberately obfuscatationary. Only have to look back over the last few years for that.

 

A graph - posted on this thread a few days ago - shows there is disagreement among 'scientists'.

 

 

Now if the blues are correct then the others are wrong. And if the others are right well,,,,!

I take it that they all had access to the same data.

 

I don't know if the Earth is warming up. It was very hot for a 6 week period in April and May this year. As for the climate changing; I'll accept that. Seeing as climate is - and always has been - changing.

 

But where I disagree, with many, is that I do not believe it is man's endeavours that are causing the changes. Our interventions into the natural are insignificant.

 

I reckon all the bods spouting this clap-trap about humans responsible for climate change and global warming, would be better of directing their energies to try stopping corporations fowling the land, and dumping their filth in the rivers and oceans.

 

 

Let's see links for that chart.

 

But, yeah, we got it: you flunked science in school, and still hold a grudge.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

You're either not paying attention, or you are a liar. I have never claimed the Earth is not warming, or that it not at least in large part human activity. I have in fact stated the opposite any number of times. 

 

Who funds the scientists you believe?

 

You can say "I don't know", but that means you are clueless on this subject.

 

You can ignore the question, which is likely because it's what you generally do, 

 

Or you can try to answer and explain how the "scientists" you believe are funded, and why we should believe them and not the "scientists" that disagree with them. 

Nope.

 

I have explained that trolling doubt by "asking questions" or implying corruption by scientists is your technique.

 

Its pretty obvious that your internet friends send you material to post. They, in turn, lead back to paid trolls (paid by either the oil industry or Russia).

 

That's why I ask you why the stratosphere is cooling because the Troll Factory has no answers for that.

[owl sees all]

26 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Let's see links for that chart.

 

But, yeah, we got it: you flunked science in school, and still hold a grudge.

@placeholder - Friday last - 09-24 PM

 

I was rubbish at school. Dorothy's hair distracted me. Later is was beer and football. Got chucked out of medical school for asking too many questions. Came to Thailand and joined TV - now AN.

 

It's now all as clear as a Thai farmer's windscreen.

[Danderman123]

21 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

@placeholder - Friday last - 09-24 PM

 

I was rubbish at school. Dorothy's hair distracted me. Later is was beer and football. Got chucked out of medical school for asking too many questions. Came to Thailand and joined TV - now AN.

 

It's now all as clear as a Thai farmer's windscreen.

So, why is the stratosphere cooling?

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

Trust 'scientists'!!! How can we?? Many are compromised. Many are beholden to their sponsors, or grant givers; and could not tell the truth even if they wanted to.

 

Much of the printed stuff in journals is either made up or deliberately obfuscatationary. Only have to look back over the last few years for that.

 

A graph - posted on this thread a few days ago - shows there is disagreement among 'scientists'.

 

 

Now if the blues are correct then the others are wrong. And if the others are right well,,,,!

I take it that they all had access to the same data.

 

I don't know if the Earth is warming up. It was very hot for a 6 week period in April and May this year. As for the climate changing; I'll accept that. Seeing as climate is - and always has been - changing.

 

But where I disagree, with many, is that I do not believe it is man's endeavours that are causing the changes. Our interventions into the natural are insignificant.

 

I reckon all the bods spouting this clap-trap about humans responsible for climate change and global warming, would be better of directing their energies to try stopping corporations fowling the land, and dumping their filth in the rivers and oceans.

 

 

The graph shows that even 43 years ago the majority of science literature predicted global warming. Yet you said you went rushing out to buy fur coats. 

 

In future I suggest you stick with the majority which has grown and continues to do so. 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

Trust 'scientists'!!! How can we?? Many are compromised. Many are beholden to their sponsors, or grant givers; and could not tell the truth even if they wanted to.

 

Much of the printed stuff in journals is either made up or deliberately obfuscatationary. Only have to look back over the last few years for that.

 

A graph - posted on this thread a few days ago - shows there is disagreement among 'scientists'.

 

 

Now if the blues are correct then the others are wrong. And if the others are right well,,,,!

I take it that they all had access to the same data.

 

I don't know if the Earth is warming up. It was very hot for a 6 week period in April and May this year. As for the climate changing; I'll accept that. Seeing as climate is - and always has been - changing.

 

But where I disagree, with many, is that I do not believe it is man's endeavours that are causing the changes. Our interventions into the natural are insignificant.

 

I reckon all the bods spouting this clap-trap about humans responsible for climate change and global warming, would be better of directing their energies to try stopping corporations fowling the land, and dumping their filth in the rivers and oceans.

 

 

Those who are most compromised are those who believe the scientists are compromised.