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

[Danderman123]

10 hours ago, 0james0 said:

I posted a link explaining, but you refuse to read and educate yourself. The preferred route is not to read but gripe in disagreement. Weird…

No, you didn't.

 

In response to my question of why the Stratosphere is cooling, you posted:

 

"It's a complex variable".

 

Which is no explanation. It's pretty obvious you don't understand atmospheric physics. If you think you do, please explain why the Stratosphere is cooling as the Troposphere warms.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

10 hours ago, 0james0 said:

Mass erroneous mindset is nothing new 

Right.

 

Tens of thousands of researchers around the world are wrong, but you are right.

 

But you don't even understand why the Stratosphere is cooling.

[Danderman123]

10 hours ago, 0james0 said:

The discussion is about human caused climate change vs natural and the methods used to make the measurements. Solid proven methods such as empirical observations vs computer models that have large ambiguities in the data flow. I have read what John Clauser has to say about how clouds have a large influence on climate and its mostly left out the equation of the computer models along with other factors and there’s a lot of influences on climate. Also including, believe it or not celestial objects, decaying material on land and in h2o sources, methane released from the ocean, etc… So the whole package needs to go through an objective observation theory before it can be reliable. It has yet to have been develop. The computer models can’t even get known observational data correctly, the data spikes are all over the map. And what other posters are pointing out is the reliability of IPCC and the handling of the data. And John Clauser may not have (yet) written or co-authored white paper on the matter it doesn’t mean that he can’t read the data and fully comprehend what it is in the data. I mean really-take a look at his impressive achievements-literally mind blowing and to put that at risk for a mere notion would be purely stupid, I don’t think he is stupid. I believe John Clauser has more insight on what is going on with organizations like the IPCC more than most are willing to admit, his work has shown to be reliable and if he is making waves then it’s worth paying attention to. So we have this guy with an impressive background standing up and criticizing the IPCC for shelling out conceptual hypotheses based on ideas and concepts fed into computer models measured by people in an office as opposed to real world empirical observation measurements. Yeah he’s going against the grain and annoying a lot of people, that is what science tends to do and that fact is written in history. There’s no disagreement that climate change is in progress, the disagreements are within what is the cause, is there a single cause and of what extent and what course and what the trajectories are. 1.1c increase in temperature over a 100+ years (even that has errors but mitigated) is correlated with human activities, not proven but correlated is the hypothesis. Now some here scream and yell “PROVE IT!!” “Give me a link!!” Prove what? That the IPCC should not be a source of information? That as of yet there is no computer model that is reliable to predict the future and evidently fails to provide an accurate report of known historical trends? Those links have been posted but no one here has the fortitude to do some reading. As I mentioned before-approaching with a predisposition will definitely fail any insight. The problem with science in this day and age is that academically predisposed ideas are interjected in the curriculum and that is where errors occur - actually not this day and age—oh no wait it’s always been that way-the taboo is there will always be independent thinkers that discover things about nature-discoveries that go against the norm. History has shown us that one countless times hasn’t it? But there’s no scene in arguing with a congregated heap that refuses to study objections-

Rather than fill space with nonsense, please explain why the Stratosphere is cooling.

[Danderman123]

10 hours ago, 0james0 said:

No one is interested in repeating themselves in a perpetual redundancy. You can go back and read the previous link. 
 

those that scream the loudest are always in error 

so, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

 

I am asking you because the people who feed you talking points don't have an answer for that question. Which requires you to think for yourself - so, if you can't answer, it tells us a lot about your thinking process.

 

Let's see if you can do more than deflect and change the subject.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Danderman123

[Yellowtail]

I think it safe to say that the Earth's climate is more complex than the US stock market, yet no one has been able to build a model that accurately, and consistently predicts the market. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

[Yellowtail]

It's easy to find any number of old market models that have predicted the market as well. 

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It's easy to find any number of old market models that have predicted the market as well. 

Most of the climate models were accurate. In addition:

 

"Today, the models are much more sophisticated. Mainframe computers driven by paper punch cards have given way to supercomputers running trillions of calculations in 1 second. Modern models account for myriad interactions, including ice and snow, changes in forest coverage, and cloud formation—things that early modelers could only dream of doing. But Hausfather and his colleagues still wanted to see how accurate those bygone models really were."

[placeholder]

But not so easy to find market models that do this:

"Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters."

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I think it safe to say that the Earth's climate is more complex than the US stock market, yet no one has been able to build a model that accurately, and consistently predicts the market. 

 

 

You think it's safe to say that? You got some evidence to back that one up? Solmething comparing the order of complexity of one to the other?

[Danderman123]

Hurricane Idalia looks to be a monster storm, its very slow moving, so when it hits land, it is going to be very destructive (unless it speeds up). Its going to soak up energy from the Gulf over the next 2 days.

 

A good time to get out of town, if you live in the Bend area of Florida.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Danderman123

[0james0]

7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

No, you didn't.

 

In response to my question of why the Stratosphere is cooling, you posted:

 

"It's a complex variable".

 

Which is no explanation. It's pretty obvious you don't understand atmospheric physics. If you think you do, please explain why the Stratosphere is cooling as the Troposphere warms.

Your errors begin where? At the beginning because you choose not to read what was posted previously.

https://be scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/

Additional interesting read:

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JD028901

 

What’s with asking the same counter productive question over and over without posing any clear observational theories, a millennials game is it? 

I have zero interest in educating anyone here, up to you and on your own. But I have no problem with pointing someone toward a broader direction.

Edited August 29, 2023 by 0james0

[0james0]

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

Once again, when you have no specific rebuttal, you resort to unsubstantiated allegations. You previously made a silly comment comparing scientific research to widely shared erroneous beliefs. It doesn't matter what the scientists allegedly believe. If the research rests on earlier research and comes up with results that correspond to reality, that's enough.

Let the critics come up with a theory that has better predictive power. So far, they've failed.

Once again your errors begin by isolating to what your ideology dictates. It is apparent many have no interest in reading and comprehending any of this because it doesn’t fit the ironed in narrative of continued redundancies and the continuous little game of gotcha. It’s blatantly obvious, insidious “willful ignorance.”

 

https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/regv36n3-6n.pdf

 

https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

 

A simple summary by a young researcher:

 

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

 

After glossing over it and ignoring what is readily available throughout the internet to deductively gain knowledge and insight with empirical thought of the many facets of the subject, then just go back to the security blanket of singular -yeah-but yeah-but- arguments of the preferred comfort zone. It’s worth ignoring the insanely here until someone has developed the fortitude to bring an observation theory of human caused climate disruptions at a measurable magnitude of influence- that would pique my interest - then I’ll listen. Until then no insanity here is worth paying attention to— because the insanity of NetZero and such is not worth empaling the world economy and bringing disparity to the masses over a correlated hypothesis—that is just plain stupid. But whatever is eventually discovered short of economical major advancements in energy by a magnitude x10+, I would much rather live in a burning world of smog with fossil fuels and nuclear power plants to keep cool than a frozen world with a bunch of nonfunctional wind turbines useless solar panels and dead batteries of what you all are advocating.

[0james0]

On 8/23/2023 at 11:09 AM, Tippaporn said:

This thread is a joke for this reason.  Climate change deniers say white and climate change believers say black.  Climate change deniers say black and climate change believers say white.  What a frickin' joke.  You're not here to debate or to learn.  You're here purely to espouse.  That ain't debating.

Agree the thread is a frickin’ joke for sure. I’m not here to spar or influence, I just want to know if the theoretical “deniers” are capable of obtaining an empirical objective comprehension of the subject and at the very least deducing to plausible observational theory and capable of visualizing it in their heads. Instead of one-sided correlations of a hypothesis from mostly anti climate deniers websites that only exist for a single objective.

[Bkk Brian]

23 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

Once again your errors begin by isolating to what your ideology dictates. It is apparent many have no interest in reading and comprehending any of this because it doesn’t fit the ironed in narrative of continued redundancies and the continuous little game of gotcha. It’s blatantly obvious, insidious “willful ignorance.”

 

https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/regv36n3-6n.pdf

 

https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

 

A simple summary by a young researcher:

 

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

 

After glossing over it and ignoring what is readily available throughout the internet to deductively gain knowledge and insight with empirical thought of the many facets of the subject, then just go back to the security blanket of singular -yeah-but yeah-but- arguments of the preferred comfort zone. It’s worth ignoring the insanely here until someone has developed the fortitude to bring an observation theory of human caused climate disruptions at a measurable magnitude of influence- that would pique my interest - then I’ll listen. Until then no insanity here is worth paying attention to— because the insanity of NetZero and such is not worth empaling the world economy and bringing disparity to the masses over a correlated hypothesis—that is just plain stupid. But whatever is eventually discovered short of economical major advancements in energy by a magnitude x10+, I would much rather live in a burning world of smog with fossil fuels and nuclear power plants to keep cool than a frozen world with a bunch of nonfunctional wind turbines useless solar panels and dead batteries of what you all are advocating.

Before accusing others of errors you need to check your own sources, they are a joke.

 

https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/regv36n3-6n.pdf

 

The above which is authored by Patrick J. Michaels is nothing but a misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the models used in the IPCC reports and an old one from 2013 at that. 

 

"Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading"

 

He's often on FOX news peddling false claims

 

On Fox News, Patrick Michaels falsely claims humans are only responsible for half of global warming

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/on-fox-news-patrick-michaels-falsely-claims-humans-are-only-responsible-for-half-of-global-warming/

 

Not surprising really since he's received donations from energy companies and advocated on their behalf numerous times in the past. In fact he's even admitted that 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry.

 

"fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report"

[0james0]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Before accusing others of errors you need to check your own sources, they are a joke.

 

https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/regv36n3-6n.pdf

 

The above which is authored by Patrick J. Michaels is nothing but a misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the models used in the IPCC reports and an old one from 2013 at that. 

 

"Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading"

 

He's often on FOX news peddling false claims

 

On Fox News, Patrick Michaels falsely claims humans are only responsible for half of global warming

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/on-fox-news-patrick-michaels-falsely-claims-humans-are-only-responsible-for-half-of-global-warming/

 

Not surprising really since he's received donations from energy companies and advocated on their behalf numerous times in the past. In fact he's even admitted that 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry.

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report"

 

The persistence to avoid and self educate is a fundamental flaw. The link you posted - Climate Feedback is an activist pseudo science hack group using activist “phd” as a scheme - they have lawsuits for disseminating false fact check information that is so endearing for the “Believers”.  And Wikipedia, now that is an anonymous joke. As I said before, predictably - all you are interested in is posting recycled dead end junk instead of applying a real exercise.

 

https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2022/09/19/researchers-hit-with-lawsuits-for-fact-checking-climate-claims/

 

https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/

Yeah right fossil fuel, imagine what life would look like without it. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by 0james0

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

The persistence to avoid and self educate is a fundamental flaw. The link you posted - Climate Feedback is an activist pseudo science hack group using activist “phd” as a scheme - they have lawsuits for disseminating false fact check information that is so endearing for the “Believers”.  And Wikipedia, now that is an anonymous joke. As I said before, predictably - all you are interested in is posting recycled dead end junk instead of applying a real exercise.

 

https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2022/09/19/researchers-hit-with-lawsuits-for-fact-checking-climate-claims/

 

https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/

Yeah right fossil fuel, imagine what life would look like without it. 

I suggest you re read your own link from Law.com

 

"A loose coalition of conspiracy theorists, libertarians and conservative groups have gone after those who have provided fact-checks used to counter misleading claims circulating on sites such as Facebook and TikTok"

“They make a point of going after the fact-checkers because, in addition to stopping regulation, they also want to prevent or discourage climate scientists from doing things that might educate the public,” said Lauren Kurtz, executive director at the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

 

Climate Feedback is one of those this group of conspiracy theorists has attempted to sue. 

 

14 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

Yeah right fossil fuel, imagine what life would look like without it. 

Is there some relevance to that remark and the fact that Patrick J. Michaels admitted that 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry....lol

 

 

 

[khunJam]

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

UN chief Antonio Guterres said the planet is entering an "era of global boiling".

The length that these nut cases will say and do create fear and panic. 

 

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

Scientists agree the extra heat is mainly linked to fossil fuel use.

US President Joe Biden described climate change as an "existential threat" and that no one "can deny the impact of climate change anymore".

So what. Another leftist ploy to push against the nemesis energy companies and build giant polluting slave labor battery factories in China! Backward upside down world we live in. The left has it wrong and always will. What they believe to be a good thing always results to the worst especially for the poorest.

[khunJam]

On 7/28/2023 at 2:55 PM, RichardColeman said:

Same people in the UK moaning about Climate change and high temperatures are probably the same people moaning about paying too much for gas as its too cold !

 

 

Just wait until when the econuts find a way to impose no fossil fuels and strictly green energy. They will be frozen popsicles. 

[khunJam]

On 7/28/2023 at 4:32 PM, Isaan sailor said:

Waiting on the world’s top polluter (to the north) to make the first substantial move…..

Well they can’t make the move, those big ol slave labor fossil burning factories are needed to make all those energy sucking batteries so the leftists will feel good about the damaging success 

[khunJam]

On 7/29/2023 at 12:45 PM, novacova said:

How dare you say such things, don’t you know it will incite hysterical hissy fits of the greenywokiet@rdzies where the belief of solar cycles have no place in that reality and where only skewed political science can exist!

Damn right. Only people make climate change. Why on earth would anyone think otherwise is beyond me

[khunJam]

On 7/29/2023 at 12:51 PM, BritManToo said:

........... but no proof it would be a bad thing, and no proof it could be changed.

Absolutely! This is the proof that I would love to analyze. Proof it’s a bad thing and it could be changed. Most of the hype is we are all going to die if something isn’t done right now!! The biggest question is who is cashing in on this. Donations that enviro entities and the attorneys that work for them? Politicians that have big investments? Needs a closer look.

[khunJam]

On 7/29/2023 at 2:39 PM, novacova said:

Really? Good grief already, look at where these come from, 100% political.

Exactly. First it was the global warming hysteria. Then measurements showed the Earth was cooling. Well, then they came up with climate change, which is actually more accurate because the climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years, millions actually. It’s a variable moving target that those on that side keep playing with about every one of their hysterical narratives the variable targets keep moving, every single one of them. But what this is really about is manipulating the masses, political warfare. One either buys into it and even to the point of an obsession to win for self preservation, or remains calm with an open empirical independent mind. Personally I really don’t care what an individual thinks or accepts, they own it.

Well said. It’s a political theater and money is at the center of it. A money machine for lobbyists and their puppet politicians. 

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, 0james0 said:

The persistence to avoid and self educate is a fundamental flaw. The link you posted - Climate Feedback is an activist pseudo science hack group using activist “phd” as a scheme - they have lawsuits for disseminating false fact check information that is so endearing for the “Believers”.  And Wikipedia, now that is an anonymous joke. As I said before, predictably - all you are interested in is posting recycled dead end junk instead of applying a real exercise.

 

https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2022/09/19/researchers-hit-with-lawsuits-for-fact-checking-climate-claims/

 

https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/

Yeah right fossil fuel, imagine what life would look like without it. 

This is from the article linked to your first link:

"The plaintiff, Dane Wigington, runs a website called GeoEngineering Watch, which is dedicated to exposing “global climate engineering,” or using technologies to alter weather systems. Wigington made a conspiracy theory-filled documentary, called “The Dimming,” on the same topic. Among its claims is that condensation trails behind airplanes were actually dangerous chemicals being disbursed by the government to alleviate global warming."

He's not a loon. No way. No how. 

 

As for the fate of that deranged lawsuit:

"California Federal Court Dismissed Defamation Case Against Climate Scientist Fact Checker. 

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted a climate scientist’s motion to dismiss a defamation action brought by a plaintiff who published a documentary on YouTube and Facebook promoting his belief that there “has been an intentional effort to dim direct sunlight through aircraft-dispersed particles.” In a third-party fact checker’s review of the documentary, the defendant climate scientist referred to the documentary’s claims as “pure fantasy.” The court concluded it did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, who was a senior research associate at Cornell University in New York. The court also granted the defendant’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law and awarded the defendant fees and costs."

http://climatecasechart.com/case/wigington-v-macmartin/

 

As for the second link. here's how the court decided on Stossel's case:

Stossel v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

"Federal Court Dismissed Defamation Claim Arising from Fact-Checking of Climate Change Videos on Facebook. In a defamation lawsuit concerning labels placed on climate change-related videos on Facebook, the federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff journalist’s defamation claim against both Meta Platforms, Inc. and a non-profit fact-checking organization...

The court also granted the defendants’ motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation law, finding that the statements at issue qualified as protected activity under the law because they were made in a public forum and concerned a matter of public interest."

https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/

https://climatecasechart.com/case/stossel-v-facebook-inc/

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, khunJam said:

Absolutely! This is the proof that I would love to analyze. Proof it’s a bad thing and it could be changed. Most of the hype is we are all going to die if something isn’t done right now!! The biggest question is who is cashing in on this. Donations that enviro entities and the attorneys that work for them? Politicians that have big investments? Needs a closer look.

It's another example of BIG GREEN against small oil, tiny gas, and miniscule coal. It's just not Fair!

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, 0james0 said:

Once again your errors begin by isolating to what your ideology dictates. It is apparent many have no interest in reading and comprehending any of this because it doesn’t fit the ironed in narrative of continued redundancies and the continuous little game of gotcha. It’s blatantly obvious, insidious “willful ignorance.”

 

https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/regv36n3-6n.pdf

 

https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

 

A simple summary by a young researcher:

 

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

 

After glossing over it and ignoring what is readily available throughout the internet to deductively gain knowledge and insight with empirical thought of the many facets of the subject, then just go back to the security blanket of singular -yeah-but yeah-but- arguments of the preferred comfort zone. It’s worth ignoring the insanely here until someone has developed the fortitude to bring an observation theory of human caused climate disruptions at a measurable magnitude of influence- that would pique my interest - then I’ll listen. Until then no insanity here is worth paying attention to— because the insanity of NetZero and such is not worth empaling the world economy and bringing disparity to the masses over a correlated hypothesis—that is just plain stupid. But whatever is eventually discovered short of economical major advancements in energy by a magnitude x10+, I would much rather live in a burning world of smog with fossil fuels and nuclear power plants to keep cool than a frozen world with a bunch of nonfunctional wind turbines useless solar panels and dead batteries of what you all are advocating.

 

8 hours ago, 0james0 said:

Once again your errors begin by isolating to what your ideology dictates. It is apparent many have no interest in reading and comprehending any of this because it doesn’t fit the ironed in narrative of continued redundancies and the continuous little game of gotcha. It’s blatantly obvious, insidious “willful ignorance.”

 

https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/regv36n3-6n.pdf

 

https://issues.org/climate-change-scenarios-lost-touch-reality-pielke-ritchie/

 

A simple summary by a young researcher:

 

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

 

After glossing over it and ignoring what is readily available throughout the internet to deductively gain knowledge and insight with empirical thought of the many facets of the subject, then just go back to the security blanket of singular -yeah-but yeah-but- arguments of the preferred comfort zone. It’s worth ignoring the insanely here until someone has developed the fortitude to bring an observation theory of human caused climate disruptions at a measurable magnitude of influence- that would pique my interest - then I’ll listen. Until then no insanity here is worth paying attention to— because the insanity of NetZero and such is not worth empaling the world economy and bringing disparity to the masses over a correlated hypothesis—that is just plain stupid. But whatever is eventually discovered short of economical major advancements in energy by a magnitude x10+, I would much rather live in a burning world of smog with fossil fuels and nuclear power plants to keep cool than a frozen world with a bunch of nonfunctional wind turbines useless solar panels and dead batteries of what you all are advocating.

Whats's clear is that when it's demonstrated that you haven't got a clue about the facts, you retreat to metaphysical gobbledygook instead.

Let's review your history when it comes to dealing with reality. I had pointed out that about 1/3 of the atmosphere is composed of CO2 linked to the burning of fossil fuels. We know this because of the reduced percentage of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Because fossil fuels have been sequestered for millions of years they contain virtually no carbon 14. So when the carbon in them is burned and turns to CO2, the percentage of Carbon 14 is reduced. Someone would have to be seriously in denial to ignore the basic nuclear physics of this.

 

Someone like you. You claimed that only 10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels. And to back up your claim, you posted a link to an article that you believed supported your claim but said nothing of the sort. 

Here's what you wrote on page 23 of this thread in rebuttal:

It's clear you got it massively wrong

"Clear your web browser from all the garbage it’s collected because it’s directing you to what you assume what is instead of what is.

The mathematics of leaf decay - MIT News

In fact, the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

 

https://news.mit.edu/2012/leaf-decay-1004"

 

 

You repeatedly assert the importance of keeping an open mind. Yet, when faced with overwhelming evidence, you clung to your beliefs instead. So attached to those beliefs, that you invoked an irrelevant scientific study in the belief that it supported your claims.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by placeholder

[Danderman123]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/gulf-coast-temperatures-surge-to-highest-levels-ever-observed/ar-AA1fTCtr

 

Gulf Coast temperatures surge to highest levels ever observed

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/gulf-coast-temperatures-surge-to-highest-levels-ever-observed/ar-AA1fTCtr

 

Gulf Coast temperatures surge to highest levels ever observed

 

 

Just in time for Hurricane Idalia.

[Bkk Brian]

9 hours ago, khunJam said:

Absolutely! This is the proof that I would love to analyze. Proof it’s a bad thing and it could be changed. Most of the hype is we are all going to die if something isn’t done right now!! The biggest question is who is cashing in on this. Donations that enviro entities and the attorneys that work for them? Politicians that have big investments? Needs a closer look.

Reading your recent rants on here I doubt you've got the capability of examining any evidence provided since its already been posted multiple times. Where have you read that "Most of the hype is we are all going to die if something isn’t done right now!!" ??

[Danderman123]

On 7/29/2023 at 12:22 PM, digger70 said:

What is it about you that you don't understand that there's no proof as yet that the global warming is accelerated by the course of  man.

Some say it is others say it's not .

You can believe what you like just don't say that people are incapable of understanding some things. 

I can say same but you wouldn't  like it Do You?

Have a nice day and be Quiet.

You clearly are not paying attention.

 

CO2 traps heat in the Troposphere.

 

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm over the last 40 years.

 

Isotopic analysis shows the vast majority of this excess CO2 is manmade. Also, the excess CO2 correlates to measured CO2 output from human activities.

 

As predicted, global temperature has risen as CO2 concentration increases.

 

There is no mystery here.

 

Unless you are one of those people who says there is no proof that sex causes pregnancy.