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

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Not a peer reviewed scientific study, but attached a link to the 2015 Annual Lecture for the GWPF, delivered by dr Patrick MOORE.

> https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/Moore-2.pdf

or here the web-version

> https://www.netzerowatch.com/28155/

The lecture has the title Should we Celebrate CO2? and dr Moore makes the convincing case that instead of demonizing 'big bad' CO2 that we should celebrate it, as it is fundamental for all life on earth. 

It's a fascinating 13 page read filled to the brim with data backing up his claims, and he ends his lecture by stating: I hope you have seen CO2 from a new perspective and will join with me to Celebrate CO2! 

 

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)

 

"In 2006, he disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels". He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change."

 

In other words, he is clueless about the role of CO2 in causing climate change, and is just making stuff up.

[0james0]

20 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

I was responding to 0james0 because of his trolling remarks, stating to a male poster "Fair enough young lady"

 

But since you're now trolling to I'll leave you to it.

It was a deduction of language. Does anyone know what gender and age bracket of the anonymous profiles here are? 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, 0james0 said:

It was a deduction of language. Does anyone know what gender and age bracket of the anonymous profiles here are? 

I know what his gender is and it not because of his profile or name. 

[ozimoron]

On 8/20/2023 at 5:21 PM, gwapofarang said:

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

Any excuse to be able to propagate lies without referencing them.

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, positivevibes said:

The Earth has been cooling for 600 years. One swallow doesn't make an unexceptionally hot summer.

Actually, the Earth has been cooling since the Interglacial Maximum some 8000 years ago.

 

But the current warming is problematic because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere implies much more warming to come.

 

Your position is akin to a frog in a pot of water over a hot stove saying "this is nothing!"

[0james0]

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

You clearly didn't understand the article. It notes that it's a cycle. Leaves soak up CO2 and when they die their little corpses eventually release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. In other words, the CO2 is being recycled. So, ultimately the leaves aren't adding any CO2.  For your benefit I have put the relevant portions into boldface.

"The colorful leaves piling up in your backyard this fall can be thought of as natural stores of carbon. In the springtime, leaves soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converting the gas into organic carbon compounds. Come autumn, trees shed their leaves, leaving them to decompose in the soil as they are eaten by microbes.  Over time, decaying leaves release carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

 

And I see that you have no answer for the proof based on nuclear physics that the source of approximately 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels.

 

I could cite other reasons as to why your contention that leaves are responsible for the increase in CO2, but I'll leave it there unless you insist on further pursuing this nonsense.

It’s an article that gives insight of the one of the complexities of the atmosphere. Read entirely, if you are genuinely interested in climatology.

[Yellowtail]

19 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Just because you posted a link doesn't mean that you understand or agree with the linked content. Could you provide a brief summary of the explanation for Stratospheric cooling? If not, can you tell us if you agree with the findings in that link?

Just because you ask the same question over and overs doesn't mean you understand the topic. 

[0james0]

If anyone from any viewpoint is genuinely interested in the complexities of the climate and atmosphere physics then I strongly suggest reading a blog by Steve Carson. He explains in practical terms and there is a lot of feedback from colleagues and scientists. But going in with a predisposed opinion nothing will be gained. There is a lot to read and learn to better understand and equip those who are sincerely interested. 

https://scienceofdoom.com/

 

and I will add that if you are here just to give an “opinion” derived from “sources” that used in the attempt to “convince” with impunity of your counterparts, then don’t bother 

Edited August 22, 2023 by 0james0

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

It’s an article that gives insight of the one of the complexities of the atmosphere. Read entirely, if you are genuinely interested in climatology.

Along with these two that are far more up top date, have a read:

 

A recently published study showed that among the overall sources of carbon dioxide in urban environments, a fraction is from decaying trees, lawns, and other urban vegetation. The contribution is modest – about one-fifth of the measured CO2 contributed by the urban environment – and varies seasonally. This was more than researchers anticipated and underscores the complexity of tracking urban carbon emissions.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-decaying-urban-greenery-plays-a-surprising-role-in-carbon-emissions

 

 

"The research found that over the course of those two decades, living woody plants were responsible for more than 80% of the sources and sinks on land, with soil, leaf litter, and decaying organic matter making up the rest but they also saw that vegetation retained a far smaller fraction of the carbon than the scientists originally thought."

 

"that the ability of tropical forests to absorb massive amounts of carbon has waned in recent years. The decline in this ability is because of large-scale deforestation, habitat degradation, and climate change effects, like more frequent droughts and fires. In fact, the study, published in Science Advances, showed that 90% of the carbon that forests around the world absorb from the atmosphere is offset by the amount of carbon released by such disturbances as deforestation and droughts."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-study-finds-tropical-forests-ability-to-absorb-carbon-dioxide-is-waning

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Just because you ask the same question over and overs doesn't mean you understand the topic. 

Let's recap the bidding:

 

I asked you why the Stratosphere is cooling, and you replied with a link stating that the Stratosphere is cooling because CO2 traps heat in the Troposphere that normally would rise up to the Stratosphere.

 

Therefore, CO2, which is at record levels, due to human production, is warming the Troposphere. 

 

It's not increased solar activity that is warming the planet.

 

Thanks for playing.

[0james0]

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Along with these two that are far more up top date, have a read:

 

A recently published study showed that among the overall sources of carbon dioxide in urban environments, a fraction is from decaying trees, lawns, and other urban vegetation. The contribution is modest – about one-fifth of the measured CO2 contributed by the urban environment – and varies seasonally. This was more than researchers anticipated and underscores the complexity of tracking urban carbon emissions.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-decaying-urban-greenery-plays-a-surprising-role-in-carbon-emissions

 

 

"The research found that over the course of those two decades, living woody plants were responsible for more than 80% of the sources and sinks on land, with soil, leaf litter, and decaying organic matter making up the rest but they also saw that vegetation retained a far smaller fraction of the carbon than the scientists originally thought."

 

"that the ability of tropical forests to absorb massive amounts of carbon has waned in recent years. The decline in this ability is because of large-scale deforestation, habitat degradation, and climate change effects, like more frequent droughts and fires. In fact, the study, published in Science Advances, showed that 90% of the carbon that forests around the world absorb from the atmosphere is offset by the amount of carbon released by such disturbances as deforestation and droughts."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-study-finds-tropical-forests-ability-to-absorb-carbon-dioxide-is-waning

Yes it is one piece of a very complex system. There was no attempt to convey that the decomposition of organic matter is solely responsible for climate changes. But I can understand if someone is amped up on a single factor known as human activity.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

Yes it is one piece of a very complex system. There was no attempt to convey that the decomposition of organic matter is solely responsible for climate changes. But I can understand if someone is amped up on a single factor known as human activity.

Yea nothing to be amped about with human induced climate change particurly when much of it is due to de forestation and climate change or fires and other factors eh

[Jack Cook]

More of the endless lefty MMGW nonsense. There is no proof only opinions.

[Isaan sailor]

China opens an average of two coal-fired power plants per week.  They don’t seem to care about global warming.

[0james0]

45 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Let's recap the bidding:

 

I asked you why the Stratosphere is cooling, and you replied with a link stating that the Stratosphere is cooling because CO2 traps heat in the Troposphere that normally would rise up to the Stratosphere.

 

Therefore, CO2, which is at record levels, due to human production, is warming the Troposphere. 

 

It's not increased solar activity that is warming the planet.

 

Thanks for playing.

It is a complex variable. 
Steve Carson has a great explanation if you are interested in giving it a read.

https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

Edited August 22, 2023 by 0james0

[0james0]

5 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

China opens an average of two coal-fired power plants per week.  They don’t seem to care about global warming.

And a lot of the ev batteries are being farmed out to China and built in those beautiful facilities for “the greater good”

Edited August 22, 2023 by 0james0

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

No not a peer reviewed study but an opinion piece by Patrick Moore.

 

Greenpeace has criticized Moore, calling him "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry"[4] who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson

Complete chaos isn't? 

 

Now we believe in nuclear power, or?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Let's recap the bidding:

 

I asked you why the Stratosphere is cooling, and you replied with a link stating that the Stratosphere is cooling because CO2 traps heat in the Troposphere that normally would rise up to the Stratosphere.

 

Therefore, CO2, which is at record levels, due to human production, is warming the Troposphere. 

 

It's not increased solar activity that is warming the planet.

 

Thanks for playing.

I never said increased solar activity was warming the planet, please try to follow along. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

26 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Complete chaos isn't? 

 

Now we believe in nuclear power, or?

No, we've got to stay the course! 

[Bkk Brian]

20 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Complete chaos isn't? 

 

Now we believe in nuclear power, or?

That's a greenpeace stance and needs more research to see why, I've not bothered. 

 

But Trump likes him so he must be good....lol

 

Greenpeace has hit back against President Donald Trump for tweeting a climate change denial from a former member of the environmental group.

Mr Moore also lashed out at freshman Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, which is a resolution that aims to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change in the US.

Mr Moore called the congresswoman a "twit" and suggested global warming might be beneficial as carbon dioxide is a "building block of life".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47543905

 

Here's a fact check on his claims:

 

FACT CHECK: Yes, CO2 warms the planet and influences climate change

“I’m about to set some facts straight. Is the earth warming? Well, yes. There’s been slight warming in the last 300 years since the peak of the little ice age. But guess what, there’s no scientific proof that this is caused by carbon dioxide. And simply asserting a hypothesis does not prove it to be true but that doesn’t stop environmentalists, activists, and most troubling, politicians from calling carbon dioxide, it a toxic pollutant,” Moore said. 

https://www.thecable.ng/fact-check-yes-co2-warms-the-planet-and-influences-climate-change

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, 0james0 said:

It’s an article that gives insight of the one of the complexities of the atmosphere. Read entirely, if you are genuinely interested in climatology.

Revisionism much.? Here for your delectation is your claim that only 10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human linked. You simply ignored the evidence I produced  that we know fossil fuels account for about 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere because fossil fuels contain virtually no Carbon 14. I even posted a link with an excellent explanation of  why this is so and what it means. You just ignored it. What's left of your comments (it looks like the mods expunged at least a few) supports my claim. Instead you believed that because 90% of CO2 released into the atmosphere comes from decaying leaves, that proved you were correct. But as I pointed out, the article also said that it's a cycle. The leaves absorb CO2 when they''re growing and release it after they fall to the ground. No net gain claimed or even implied.  I even quoted that passage and put in boldface the crucial portion of the text. Instead of acknowledging your error or even address the specifics, you just launched into generalities and unsupported characterizations. 

 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never said increased solar activity was warming the planet, please try to follow along. 

 

 

So, given that you claimed the sun was responsible for the cooling of the stratosphere, how exactly is the sun responsible? What's the mechanism or the process?

Edited August 22, 2023 by placeholder

[Danderman123]

56 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

It is a complex variable. 
Steve Carson has a great explanation if you are interested in giving it a read.

https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

Nope.

 

The blog post says nothing to contest the known fact that the Stratosphere is cooling because rising levels of CO2 trap heat in the Troposphere, so the heat does not rise up to the Stratosphere.

 

That CO2 is increasing due to human activities.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Jack Cook said:

More of the endless lefty MMGW nonsense. There is no proof only opinions.

There is plenty of proof. You just don't understand it.

[Danderman123]

21 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never said increased solar activity was warming the planet, please try to follow along. 

 

 

classic trolling manuever there. I will ignore it.

 

Your own link demonstrates that rising levels of CO2 are warming the planet. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, 0james0 said:

It is a complex variable. 
Steve Carson has a great explanation if you are interested in giving it a read.

https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

Who is Steve Carson and what are his qualifications, I cannot find that anywhere on the blog, even the about us page? He certainly provides a lot of posts presuming he is the one writing under the authorship of science of doom. I note its become a bit of a forum with all the post comments.

 

Anyway the articles you linked to are from 2010 and and plenty of studies have been updated since then.

 

One of his posts from this year, April:

 

Global temperature has been rising since around 1900, and CO2 is the principal cause. The physics behind the inappropriately-named “greenhouse effect” is certain, so burning fossil fuels, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, is certain to increase the surface temperature. I’ve written many articles on that topic on the original blog and shown how the equations are derived (see Notes).

So it should be no surprise to find that there are more extreme hot days and less extreme cold days.

If the temperature goes up, then the number of days with a temperature above say 35°C (86°F) or 40°C (95°F) – or whatever number you want to pick – will increase.

https://scienceofdoom.com/2023/04/13/extreme-weather-14-trends-in-extreme-hot-and-cold-days-nights/

 

Full article on his substack link

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, Jack Cook said:

More of the endless lefty MMGW nonsense. There is no proof only opinions.

Wrong!!  Absolutely wrong!!  They have consensus of opinions!!  <sarc>

[Tippaporn]

17 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

<snip>

 

No luck for them so far, the scientific consensus remains behind Climate Change.

 

Except for some oddballs and lunatics.

This much is established:

  

On 8/21/2023 at 8:19 PM, Tippaporn said:

In fact, the argument of consensus is a recognised formal argumentative fallacy.  It's termed Argumentum ad populum and per Wiki:

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

If you understand that the argumentative use of consensus is a fallacy of relevance, and therefore false, why do you continue to use it to bolster your argument?  Would you agree that it's use, being that it's false, is therefore dishonest?  And if anyone purposely uses a known falsity then what might one conclude from that?

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This much is established:

  

If you understand that the argumentative use of consensus is a fallacy of relevance, and therefore false, why do you continue to use it to bolster your argument?  Would you agree that it's use, being that it's false, is therefore dishonest?  And if anyone purposely uses a known falsity then what might one conclude from that?

Would you agree that it's use, being that it's false, is therefore dishonest?

 

No I deduce you are the one posting false information.

 

Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change

 

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Would you agree that it's use, being that it's false, is therefore dishonest?

 

No I deduce you are the one posting false information.

 

Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change

 

I'm posting information from Wiki on long established and accepted fallacies of argument.  Consensus being one of them.  To say that I'm posting false information is to say that Wiki's page on fallacies of argument is false information since I simply copied and pasted it.  So saying that I'm posting false information is patently false.

And BOOM!! you immediately post an article on scientific consensus which suggests that consensus makes something true.  I mean, what does the above say?  Well, it's more than obvious.

BTW, neither @Danderman123 nor @placeholder have offered to address this issue.  Hmmmm . . .  I wonder why?

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Tippaporn