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

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, JackGats said:

Yes but I don't believe in that narrative. They changed it to hedge their bets after the rate of global warming didn't materialise. Especially so after it turned out temperature measurements had been taken too close to cities as cities grew (urban heat islands). They stigmatised sceptics for refusing to believe in anthropic global warming, but they refused to recognise there was an "anthropic" bias with measurements being taken too close to modern cities.

 

By definition the climate is that which changes. Throwing in rain, droughts, winds, coastal erosion, hurricanes just serves to allow cherry-picking events as they happen. The refusal to make allowances for population explosion whenever geohazards are being attributed to "climate change" is a scientific scandal. The world's population grew from an estimated 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7.9 billion in 2021!

 

"Yes but I don't believe in that narrative."

 

Right you just believe with no science behind that belief which puts you at odds with the experts who I prefer to believe and have provided actual facts.

[digger70]

Just now, Woof999 said:

At the point where Earth becomes too hot to support human life, whether it was caused by man or not is kind of immaterial.

 

You'd likely need to be blind/deaf and/or stupid to believe that there is not an upward trend. If we can do something to slow or stop that trend without giving up everything that makes our lives tolerable would seem reasonable, likely sensible and maybe mandatory at some point.

 

I cannot see it happening though. As a species, we are far too self centered and short-sighted, me included.

Yes you right it doesn't matter what causes the warming  we can't fix it , let nature take its course it has been doing that since year dot.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, novacova said:

Natural history has shown us that events of greater magnitude has occurred long before humans existed, and most cannot be accurately measured. Myself and no one here has anything to prove to anyone. Plain and simple.

More unbacked nonsense from you. Try engaging with facts for a chlange:

https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html

[JackGats]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"Yes but I don't believe in that narrative."

 

Right you just believe with no science behind that belief which puts you at odds with the experts who I prefer to believe and have provided actual facts.

I certainly don't believe in ad hoc narratives from a scientific nomenklatura who keep changing the goal posts.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, JackGats said:

I certainly don't believe in ad hoc narratives from a scientific nomenklatura who keep changing the goal posts.

When you imply that NASA is making ad hoc narratives and liken them to a scientific nomenklatura then it sort of gives the game away that you have nothing but words and no credible links to further your debate.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, JackGats said:

I certainly don't believe in ad hoc narratives from a scientific nomenklatura who keep changing the goal posts.

Changing the goal posts? The original predictions about global warming, which got a Japanese scientist a Nobel Prize, are right on track. How is that changing the goal posts?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, digger70 said:

Don't keep hammering all this  to us non believers . One can believe what one wants.

Some say it's man made global warming .

Some say it isn't  . 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/664137

From 2003, and even then a minority opinion.

[heybruce]

56 minutes ago, novacova said:

Rate of change? Good grief, another gimmick. Earths climate has been changing long before what humans are capable of ascertaining from the natural history record with greater variables than what humans have observed. The rest is just politics.

Right.  When your going 100 km/hr it doesn't matter if you come to a stop in 10 seconds or 1/10 of a second.  Well....in the latter case you'll die, but beyond that rate of change doesn't matter.

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Yes but I don't believe in that narrative. They changed it to hedge their bets after the rate of global warming didn't materialise. Especially so after it turned out temperature measurements had been taken too close to cities as cities grew (urban heat islands). They stigmatised sceptics for refusing to believe in anthropic global warming, but they refused to recognise there was an "anthropic" bias with measurements being taken too close to modern cities.

 

By definition the climate is that which changes. Throwing in rain, droughts, winds, coastal erosion, hurricanes just serves to allow cherry-picking events as they happen. The refusal to make allowances for population explosion whenever geohazards are being attributed to "climate change" is a scientific scandal. The world's population grew from an estimated 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7.9 billion in 2021!

 

First paragraph:  Unsubstantiated claims.

 

Second paragraph:  Unsubstantiated conjecture.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

From 2003, and even then a minority opinion.

What's more, let's say it's true that cosmic rays are responsible for cooling and when they're blocked by increased solar activity, that causes warming. The thing is, that for the past several 11 year solar cycles, solar activity was actually diminishing.

https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle/historical-solar-cycles.html

 

So there should have been a decline in global temperatures. But the opposite happened. Which means that if, in fact, cosmic rays do result in cooling, then there must be a countervailing force that overrode that effect. 

Before the average global temperature began its rapid rise, scientists did note a weak connection between solar activity and global temperature. But as CO2 levels began their rapid rise, that connection was disrupted.

[Rimmer]

An unattributed troll post and a reply have been removed

[Jacques Clouseau]

On 7/28/2023 at 8:31 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

The facts debunk this report as false... the 1930's were far hotter... the 1970's were far cooler... 

Can you back your claim up ?

Where does that information come from ?

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Woof999 said:

At the point where Earth becomes too hot to support human life, whether it was caused by man or not is kind of immaterial.

I'm from the UK, +10c would just about make the place livable.

So it would depend which point on the Earth.

Edited July 29, 2023 by BritManToo

[nglodnig]

17 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Those who have the ice cores.

Yep, especially those ice cores from Greece, Spain and Texas.

[nglodnig]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

97% of climate experts

ACTUALLY, it turns out that 97% of climate papers THAT EXPRESSED A VIEW ON CAUSE said it was man-made - pointed out by that Neil Oliver chappie but I had seen this fact before. Not the same thing. Apparently most did NOT express a view - but as they say, "lies, d*mned lies and statistics"

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

ACTUALLY, it turns out that 97% of climate papers THAT EXPRESSED A VIEW ON CAUSE said it was man-made - pointed out by that Neil Oliver chappie but I had seen this fact before. Not the same thing. Apparently most did NOT express a view - but as they say, "lies, d*mned lies and statistics"

Actually it was papers that either expresssed a view or depended on climate warming data for their research. Andl, that's because it only makes sense to use climatological research papers that are in some way connected to climate warming. Most papers in biology don't express views  on the theory of evolution or cite evolutionary data.. Does that mean it's unreasonable to say that most biologists subscribe to the theory?

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

ACTUALLY, it turns out that 97% of climate papers THAT EXPRESSED A VIEW ON CAUSE said it was man-made - pointed out by that Neil Oliver chappie but I had seen this fact before. Not the same thing. Apparently most did NOT express a view - but as they say, "lies, d*mned lies and statistics"

There's also this:

Myers et al., 2021[edit]

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=The survey found 97% agreed,scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.}

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

ACTUALLY, it turns out that 97% of climate papers THAT EXPRESSED A VIEW ON CAUSE said it was man-made - pointed out by that Neil Oliver chappie but I had seen this fact before. Not the same thing. Apparently most did NOT express a view - but as they say, "lies, d*mned lies and statistics"

You mean this chappie Neil Oliver?

 

BBC Meteorologist Takes Apart GB News Host's Climate Denial With Facts

A BBC meteorologist has effortlessly dismantled a GB News host’s denials about climate change, just by pointing out how weather forecasting works.

On Monday evening, after wildfires were reported across Greek islands as southern Europe endured yet another day of the current heatwave, TV presenter Neil Oliver tried to debunk climate concerns as fearmongering.

He claimed the “terrifying temperatures that were being predicted all starting with a 4, with a 40-this and a 40-that” supposedly all began with a satellite picture which looked at ground temperature.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-meteorologist-gb-news-climate-change-denial_uk_64bfbb5fe4b08a8c9211c1ef

[novacova]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

More unbacked nonsense from you. Try engaging with facts for a chlange:

https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html

Obviously the above poster is politically bent. Of course natural history in its entirety most certainly cannot be accurately measured as of today and it certainly has shown major events have occurred before any human walked here, if anyone is unable to understand that and claim otherwise has no understanding of natural history. Science is science, it’s research and discovery, not fact. The science of yesteryear is not the science of today and the science of today will certainly evolve more accurately as future progresses, as long as politics are not involved. Politics pollute the facts. If one is politically motivated for a truth, then the truth will never be known to them, it’s just an opinion and idea. Anyone can cite bs in the name of science, it simply doesn’t make it so. Though in this day and age of political toxicity there are major gaps in knowledge and understanding due to political conformity. People just don’t realize how finite our knowledge is, instead they lean the opposite direction and claim full knowledge and understanding, which is the exact opposite direction of where discovery is. That is where your nonsense begins.

[nglodnig]

30 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually it was papers that either expresssed a view or depended on climate warming data for their research.

In the U.K., a well-known advertising slogan for Whiskas was "eight out of 10 owners said their cat prefers it". After a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, this was changed to "eight out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their cat prefers it". [from Wiki "Whiskas" article]

[bignok]

On 7/28/2023 at 5:34 PM, Sharp said:

The fact they relocated many monitors to ground level from the previous 2 meter minimum height tells u everything about this BS!!

Yes they move them to create warming.

[bignok]

https://www.foxnews.com/science/distorted-data-feds-close-600-weather-stations-amid-criticism-theyre-situated-to-report-warming

 

 

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

ACTUALLY, it turns out that 97% of climate papers THAT EXPRESSED A VIEW ON CAUSE said it was man-made - pointed out by that Neil Oliver chappie but I had seen this fact before. Not the same thing. Apparently most did NOT express a view - but as they say, "lies, d*mned lies and statistics"

How does that fact do anything but support the charge that climate change is being driven by human activity? 

[novacova]

It’s irrelevant whether humans have a major influence on climate, because it’s a political issue, therefore the human cause defaults to null. Fact: the major influence of climate is the Sun, oceanic volcanoes and large volumes of methane being released. Nothing we can do about it. But if some bleeding hearts want to blame ourselves for nature pushing forward, then fine, have at it. Meanwhile I’m going to go outside willfully and joyfully burn some fossil fuel, just like what the hypocrites do ????????????????

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, novacova said:

Obviously the above poster is politically bent. Of course natural history in its entirety most certainly cannot be accurately measured as of today and it certainly has shown major events have occurred before any human walked here, if anyone is unable to understand that and claim otherwise has no understanding of natural history. Science is science, it’s research and discovery, not fact. The science of yesteryear is not the science of today and the science of today will certainly evolve more accurately as future progresses, as long as politics are not involved. Politics pollute the facts. If one is politically motivated for a truth, then the truth will never be known to them, it’s just an opinion and idea. Anyone can cite bs in the name of science, it simply doesn’t make it so. Though in this day and age of political toxicity there are major gaps in knowledge and understanding due to political conformity. People just don’t realize how finite our knowledge is, instead they lean the opposite direction and claim full knowledge and understanding, which is the exact opposite direction of where discovery is. That is where your nonsense begins.

Thanks for the irrelvancies. We don't need to go back to the beginnings of the planet.  I'll settle for how far back paleoclimatology can currently reach. Which. Which is way more than enough to tie climate change to the level of greenhouse gases.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, bignok said:

Yes they move them to create warming.

Nonsense. More baseless allegations.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, bignok said:

https://www.foxnews.com/science/distorted-data-feds-close-600-weather-stations-amid-criticism-theyre-situated-to-report-warming

600 out of 9000 in the US, and many other temperature measurement stations and techniques globally.  Plus, if the heat sinks remain the same while the temperatures near them increase over the years, you still have evidence of increasing temperatures.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, novacova said:

It’s irrelevant whether humans have a major influence on climate, because it’s a political issue, therefore the human cause defaults to null. Fact: the major influence of climate is the Sun, oceanic volcanoes and large volumes of methane being released. Nothing we can do about it. But if some bleeding hearts want to blame ourselves for nature pushing forward, then fine, have at it. Meanwhile I’m going to go outside willfully and joyfully burn some fossil fuel, just like what the hypocrites do ????????????????

Well, I've read lots of nonsensical statements from climate denialists but none beats this one:" It’s irrelevant whether humans have a major influence on climate, because it’s a political issue, therefore the human cause defaults to null." Because it has become a political issue, it can't be a scientific issue as well? Care to share any more nonsense with us?

 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, bignok said:

https://www.foxnews.com/science/distorted-data-feds-close-600-weather-stations-amid-criticism-theyre-situated-to-report-warming

 

 

As has previously been pointed out, the Berkeley Earth organization sliced and diced weather monitoring stations several ways and invariably warming was proved. Not that it needed it, since, as Richard Muller conceded, climatologists had gotten it right all along.

[bignok]

https://science.house.gov/2017/2/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records