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

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

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. 

I wish I could give your post five stars and a laughing emoji:

 

"The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).^"

 

Priceless!

[owl sees all]

26 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

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. 

Can't you read Bkk Brian? I stated that we got our news from the trusted BBC.

 

Never went out of my way then, to gather up evidence.

 

I suggest that you learn to read.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I wish I could give your post five stars and a laughing emoji:

 

"The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).^"

 

Priceless!

And even an economic geology I think the number was 84%.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Can't you read Bkk Brian? I stated that we got our news from the trusted BBC.

 

Never went out of my way then, to gather up evidence.

 

I suggest that you learn to read.

My post has no bearing on where you get or got your information from but seeing as you also claim you got "Got chucked out of medical school for asking too many questions" and its impossible for you to verify your claims that it was all over the BBC then I will take that all with a large grain of salt. Hope the fur coats went to good use.

[Furioso]

I'll say this; if climate change is real then we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth. 

[Hummin]

6 hours ago, save the frogs said:

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? 

 

 

 

Because it serve the purpose of the economy delivering products, replacable upgraded products, service line and parts

 

Why should we use productive land, deforrest to make hemp and biodiesel? Think about, how much resources that takes away from clean healthy food production, water and how much more natural forrest we will need to cut down?

[novacova]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

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.

Evidently someone here has no bubble to burst. By far most of the c02 is a natural phenomenon. But if there are those to choose to get all their information from the media and google, then I can see why they make foolish erroneous statements

[owl sees all]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

My post has no bearing on where you get or got your information from but seeing as you also claim you got "Got chucked out of medical school for asking too many questions" and its impossible for you to verify your claims that it was all over the BBC then I will take that all with a large grain of salt. Hope the fur coats went to good use.

I was not in Medical School, as a trainee doctor. I has a year's placement from my University when I was reading 'Applied Physiology'. But I am a questioner. My placement was cut a tad short. My personal tutor gave me a a roasting, but I think he was secretly proud of me. Unlike a lot of people who are so easily fooled.

 

Brian mate; the BBC had regular climate warnings on the coming 'ice age'. As for the fur coat and hat. I gave them to a anti-fur protester who I quite liked the look of. We got on well. Very well! She was impressed that i would give up my clothing so readily.

[novacova]

The nature of science is skepticism with an objective approach. Any scientist or individual that states that there is an absolute truth in a theory or conflate hypothesis with theory is either a political operative or simply have no idea or meaningful knowledge of the particular subject. Maybe approach another’s perspective without pejorative rhetoric and inciting contempt, from this perspective it’s an eyesore that looks foolish and uneducated. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

I wish I could give your post five stars and a laughing emoji:

 

"The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).^"

 

Priceless!

I'm not sure what you think is funny about that statistic. These are people who work for the extractive industries including oil, gas and coal. It's in their self-interest to believe otherwise. Despite which, an overwhelming majority believe that greenhouse gasses are causing rapid climate change.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, owl sees all said:

I was not in Medical School, as a trainee doctor. I has a year's placement from my University when I was reading 'Applied Physiology'. But I am a questioner. My placement was cut a tad short. My personal tutor gave me a a roasting, but I think he was secretly proud of me. Unlike a lot of people who are so easily fooled.

 

Brian mate; the BBC had regular climate warnings on the coming 'ice age'. As for the fur coat and hat. I gave them to a anti-fur protester who I quite liked the look of. We got on well. Very well! She was impressed that i would give up my clothing so readily.

Pointless discussing these so called regular warning that the BBC gave on the coming ice age when its all unverifiable and without context. Especially considering the chart you posted that gave just 10% predicting cooling and 62% predicting warming.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, novacova said:

The nature of science is skepticism with an objective approach. Any scientist or individual that states that there is an absolute truth in a theory or conflate hypothesis with theory is either a political operative or simply have no idea or meaningful knowledge of the particular subject. Maybe approach another’s perspective without pejorative rhetoric and inciting contempt, from this perspective it’s an eyesore that looks foolish and uneducated. 

This is like saying someone's prediction that they are going to win the lottery may be true. The odds may be a billion to one against, but such a prediction is somehow realistic? Statistics are what run modern science as well as business. Even the hardest of sciences, nuclear physics, depends deeply on statistical analysis. 

Given how consistently wrong the denialists have been in their predictions, you'd think by now, people would have stopped paying them much attention. But in the case of ACC, ideology trumps critical thinking.

[Bkk Brian]

46 minutes ago, novacova said:

The role of ozone in the tropospheric-surface energy balance in the context of its latitudinally and seasonally varying modulation of solar and longwave energy fluxes. There’s various radiative energy inputs to the stratosphere and the radiative fluxes from the stratosphere to the troposphere. To a very close approximation, on an annual and hemispherical mean, longwave emission from the stratosphere balances the absorbed radiant energy. The stratosphere absorbs about twice as much longwave radiation from the troposphere as it does solar radiation. About 20% of the longwave flux from the stratosphere to the troposphere is directly due to O2. A change in O3 concentrations perturbs the stratospheric and tropospheric-surface energy balances through a number of distinct mechanisms involving changes in solar and longwave fluxes and which are separated into direct effects due to the change of O3 and indirect effects due to the accompanying change of stratospheric temperature. The relative importance of average versus spatial varying changes in ozone is examined. The he result of past analyses that, for a uniform change in ozone, the global average perturbation in radiative fluxes to the troposphere and surface is small since the perturbations in solar and infrared fluxes nearly cancel. However, this result probably severely underestimates the contribution of changes in the distribution of ozone to global climate. First, there generally are significant latitudinal and seasonal variations in the perturbation radiative fluxes to the troposphere. Second, vertical redistribution of Oe can produce larger perturbation fluxes to the troposphere than do uniform changes, and possibly of opposite sign. Third, most of the perturbation solar heating is deposited at or near the earth's surface, whereas much of the perturbation longwave fluxes are deposited in the upper troposphere with consequences for changes in the tropospheric lapse rates. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate the changes in tropospheric radiation needed to determine a change of climate due to a change of O3. Not even the net global average perturbation radiative fluxes to the troposphere can be calculated without knowing the change of the vertical ozone profile, and the vertical and latitudinal variations of the troposphere-surface perturbation heating rates are likely to be more important for climate change than the net global values.

V. Ramanathan & Robert E. Dickinson 

You may want to add a link to that copy and paste and shorten it to a headline and 3 sentences or can we all break the forum rules now? Same with your other part two of this post

 

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, novacova said:

Evidently someone here has no bubble to burst. By far most of the c02 is a natural phenomenon. But if there are those to choose to get all their information from the media and google, then I can see why they make foolish erroneous statements

I agree. Most of the CO2 is a natural phenomenon. About 2/3. 280 ppm that it was at the dawn of the Industrial revolution. How do we know that the rest isn't. Very simple actually. It's about carbon 14. Gamma rays bombard the atmosphere and create carbon 14 which gets distributed throughout the environment. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years. So after 50,000 not much remains. After millions of years virtually none. Yet the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is below what it should be but conforms to what would be expected if 1/3 of that came from burning fossil fuel. 

There's a far better and far more complete explanation at the link below:

 

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, novacova said:

Radiative equilibrium in the stratosphere is relatively quick compared to the surface/troposphere. In the lower stratosphere we might be talking about 2-3 months and in the upper stratosphere we might be talking about days for the system to reach equilibrium from a change in CO2 or other trace gas.

But that doesn’t mean that anyone expects a monotonic change in stratospheric temperature with CO2, because (once again) many other factors are also changing. We have ozone changes which are poorly understood and also a much stronger function of latitude and season.

And we also have the radiative equilibrium with the troposphere. The troposphere takes much longer to reach “equilibrium” (if it ever does).

The point is that the stratosphere affects the troposphere and the troposphere affects the stratosphere. On top of that we have the effect of stratospheric water vapor – many effects unknown because the amount and changes of water vapor are not known ; and the 11-year cycle of solar radiation superimposed along with volcanic eruptions. It’s not a nice simple relationship.

However, the fact the relationships are complex doesn’t mean we can just ignore them and say “oh this is CO2, and never mind the complexities”..

 

However, other effects could possibly also cause stratospheric cooling at the same time as tropospheric and surface heating. It’s a complex subject. But something to question for those other potential causes – would they also cause stratospheric cooling?

This is a complex subject. But we all need a starting point. Even simple questions like:

-Is the stratosphere cooling?
-Is this cooling the result of increased CO2?

aren’t so easy to answer definitively.

Model results for 40 years predicted a stratospheric cooling with more CO2. We do appear to have some stratospheric cooling, but not a steady decline.

If other causes of the warming over the last 40 years are also consistent with the same poorly understood stratospheric cooling then they will be equal candidates for attribution of temperature changes.

In not acknowledging the the source of this material was not written by you (plagiarism), you failed to reveal that this research dates from 1979. Accelerated global warming had barely gotten underway. There is a contribution from ozone layer destroying gases but their presence in the stratosphere has actually declined sharply over time.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, novacova said:

Evidently someone here has no bubble to burst. By far most of the c02 is a natural phenomenon. But if there are those to choose to get all their information from the media and google, then I can see why they make foolish erroneous statements

Then tell us where all the extra CO2 is coming from. Just saying "nature" doesn't work for critical thinkers. Scientists don't agree that it is natural.

[Yellowtail]

39 minutes ago, placeholder said:

In not acknowledging the the source of this material was not written by you (plagiarism), you failed to reveal that this research dates from 1979. Accelerated global warming had barely gotten underway. There is a contribution from ozone layer destroying gases but their presence in the stratosphere has actually declined sharply over time.

Hmmmm, who else is famous for being a plagiarist?  

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Hmmmm, who else is famous for being a plagiarist?  

I wasn't even aware that novakova was famous for being a plagiarist. Where has his play drawers work been published apart from here?

[Social Media]

Reported posts in breach of Community Standards have been removed.

[save the frogs]

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

Because it serve the purpose of the economy delivering products, replacable upgraded products, service line and parts

 

Why should we use productive land, deforrest to make hemp and biodiesel? Think about, how much resources that takes away from clean healthy food production, water and how much more natural forrest we will need to cut down?

Not sure I buy your argument.

But not sure how to debate it either. 

Sorry, Gamma Gobulin's threads are degrading my mind. 

Can't think straight. 

 

[gwapofarang]

On 7/28/2023 at 8:41 AM, placeholder said:

Rules of the forum require that you back up any factual claims to a credible source. I'll be waiting but I won't hold my breath

Says the gatekeeper, LOL. the Truth is the safest LIE.

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, Furioso said:

I'll say this; if climate change is real then we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth. 

By definition this is false.

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, novacova said:

The nature of science is skepticism with an objective approach. Any scientist or individual that states that there is an absolute truth in a theory or conflate hypothesis with theory is either a political operative or simply have no idea or meaningful knowledge of the particular subject. Maybe approach another’s perspective without pejorative rhetoric and inciting contempt, from this perspective it’s an eyesore that looks foolish and uneducated. 

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

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

 

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. ... The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

 

Do you agree with this?

[owl sees all]

16 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Pointless discussing these so called regular warning that the BBC gave on the coming ice age when its all unverifiable and without context. Especially considering the chart you posted that gave just 10% predicting cooling and 62% predicting warming.

Well Brian mate. It was placeholder's chart. I only copied it to show how scientists disagree.

 

I don't know whether there is warming or cooling. In fact I'm not bothered. Was very hot this year in my area. What I don't like is those doom and gloom mongers saying that we will all be underwater in 10 years; and it's all human's fault.

 

This Earth of ours is very robust. It has gone through many changes, and will continue to do so. We must do our bit in keeping it as clean as possible.

 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Well Brian mate. It was placeholder's chart. I only copied it to show how scientists disagree.

 

I don't know whether there is warming or cooling. In fact I'm not bothered. Was very hot this year in my area. What I don't like is those doom and gloom mongers saying that we will all be underwater in 10 years; and it's all human's fault.

 

This Earth of ours is very robust. It has gone through many changes, and will continue to do so. We must do our bit in keeping it as clean as possible.

 

I've not seen anyone saying the world is going to be under water in 10 years but yes its certainly due to human activity. I agree though we must all do our bit to keep it clean to, there are plenty of initiatives striving to do that very thing.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

Well Brian mate. It was placeholder's chart. I only copied it to show how scientists disagree.

 

You've got your tense wrong. It shows how scientists disagreed. Back then, at the dawn of climatological science. there was some disagreement. But as research kept on accumulating, the doubts disappeared until today, when virtually no research disputes that human caused climate change is a real thing.  That's how science works. The only climatologists who still deny it keep on predicting wrongly. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

What I don't like is those doom and gloom mongers saying that we will all be underwater in 10 years; and it's all human's fault.

Another characteristic of the deniers is their use of extreme caricatures in addressing the issue of climate change. People who have real facts and evidence to support their claims don't need to resort to such falsehoods.

[Credo]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

Well Brian mate. It was placeholder's chart. I only copied it to show how scientists disagree.

 

I don't know whether there is warming or cooling. In fact I'm not bothered. Was very hot this year in my area. What I don't like is those doom and gloom mongers saying that we will all be underwater in 10 years; and it's all human's fault.

 

This Earth of ours is very robust. It has gone through many changes, and will continue to do so. We must do our bit in keeping it as clean as possible.

 

Well, I certainly understand your feeling.  The doom and gloom does get a bit tiresome, but the warming world will be very different for many of us and for the flora and fauna.  There will be winners and losers.  The problem is the rate at which this is occurring is going to be problematic.  

Our existence and survival is somewhat tenuous.  It won't take large scale crop disasters -- because it was too warm for them, too wet or drought.  We have watched vast stretches of forest burn along with other disasters.  

It's the conflict between groups for resources in areas that are going to be losers that will result in large scale displacement.  Some of that movement happening now is in part due to changing conditions.   

So, no we aren't all going to be sloshing through seawater, or dying of thirst in a massive desert.  Some people will be quite lucky when their cold, miserable area becomes warmer and more hospitable.  

We do need to do what we can to slow the warming down to avoid some of the very nasty things that can happen.   

 

[owl sees all]

18 minutes ago, Credo said:

Well, I certainly understand your feeling.  The doom and gloom does get a bit tiresome, but the warming world will be very different for many of us and for the flora and fauna.  There will be winners and losers.  The problem is the rate at which this is occurring is going to be problematic.  

Our existence and survival is somewhat tenuous.  It won't take large scale crop disasters -- because it was too warm for them, too wet or drought.  We have watched vast stretches of forest burn along with other disasters.  

It's the conflict between groups for resources in areas that are going to be losers that will result in large scale displacement.  Some of that movement happening now is in part due to changing conditions.   

So, no we aren't all going to be sloshing through seawater, or dying of thirst in a massive desert.  Some people will be quite lucky when their cold, miserable area becomes warmer and more hospitable.  

We do need to do what we can to slow the warming down to avoid some of the very nasty things that can happen.   

 

Great post!

 

Where are all the people in Bangkok gonna go?!

 

[Hummin]

24 minutes ago, Credo said:

Well, I certainly understand your feeling.  The doom and gloom does get a bit tiresome, but the warming world will be very different for many of us and for the flora and fauna.  There will be winners and losers.  The problem is the rate at which this is occurring is going to be problematic.  

Our existence and survival is somewhat tenuous.  It won't take large scale crop disasters -- because it was too warm for them, too wet or drought.  We have watched vast stretches of forest burn along with other disasters.  

It's the conflict between groups for resources in areas that are going to be losers that will result in large scale displacement.  Some of that movement happening now is in part due to changing conditions.   

So, no we aren't all going to be sloshing through seawater, or dying of thirst in a massive desert.  Some people will be quite lucky when their cold, miserable area becomes warmer and more hospitable.  

We do need to do what we can to slow the warming down to avoid some of the very nasty things that can happen.   

 

Well said! 

 

Interesting times, tiresome to see the divided sometimes stupid arguments and the doom predictions from day to day media. To often and to much sensational headlines, often with grafics Illustrated.