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

[Danderman123]

10 hours ago, khunJam said:

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

There are indeed natural forces that impact climate. Since 8,000 years ago, there has been a natural cooling trend. Apart from measurements, you have probably noticed that it was warmer during the Roman Empire than during the British Empire.

 

But, manmade pollution has generated so much warming that natural forcing factors have been overwhelmed.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Natural-forces-vs-anthropic-forces-of-GHG-levels-expressed-as-the-increase-in-the_fig1_334063969

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

21 hours ago, 0james0 said:

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/

 

Your linked article talks about possible factors that could impact Stratosphere temperature. It does not explain why the Stratosphere could be cooling now.

 

Perhaps you could identify the money quote in the article that explains current Stratospheric cooling.

 

You do agree that the Stratosphere is cooling, right,

[Danderman123]

The Idalia storm track has shifted west, which means its going to suck up energy from the Gulf for a longer period.

 

It looks like Idalia is going to make landfall as a Category 4, and it will tear up Tallahassee.

 

This is when the Climate Change Deniers disappear, and everyone becomes a Socialist for a few days.

[0james0]

18 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

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. 

 

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

 

 

 

A valid suit dismissed by leftist political court. What you ignore is factual data that you’re incapable of understanding. Big oil, great stuff and we all love it even the hypocrites 

[0james0]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

There are indeed natural forces that impact climate. Since 8,000 years ago, there has been a natural cooling trend. Apart from measurements, you have probably noticed that it was warmer during the Roman Empire than during the British Empire.

 

But, manmade pollution has generated so much warming that natural forcing factors have been overwhelmed.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Natural-forces-vs-anthropic-forces-of-GHG-levels-expressed-as-the-increase-in-the_fig1_334063969

 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Your linked article talks about possible factors that could impact Stratosphere temperature. It does not explain why the Stratosphere could be cooling now.

 

Perhaps you could identify the money quote in the article that explains current Stratospheric cooling.

 

You do agree that the Stratosphere is cooling, right,

Your inability to read the science proves nothing. All you ever post is political junk. 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

A valid suit dismissed by leftist political court. What you ignore is factual data that you’re incapable of understanding. Big oil, great stuff and we all love it even the hypocrites 

You shoot yourself in the foot with the links you supplied and now down to making unsubstantiated claims on the judges now....lol

 

[0james0]

On 8/29/2023 at 11:11 AM, placeholder said:

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

This is the junk science that you are so dear to and your beloved IPCC is a proven corrupt cabal, you know it and I know it, but the difference is the religious cult of narrow minded focus that impedes understanding. Your only source is from political activists that conflate the science but you can’t see that because you can’t understand it. I know it’s difficult for some people to pull out of their political atmosphere and study the facts objectively but for the “three” profile on this thread it’s an impossible task. As I mentioned before, a millennials dilemma and irreparable. Can’t fix stupid right? 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

This is the junk science that you are so dear to and your beloved IPCC is a proven corrupt cabal, you know it and I know it, but the difference is the religious cult of narrow minded focus that impedes understanding. Your only source is from political activists that conflate the science but you can’t see that because you can’t understand it. I know it’s difficult for some people to pull out of their political atmosphere and study the facts objectively but for the “three” profile on this thread it’s an impossible task. As I mentioned before, a millennials dilemma and irreparable. Can’t fix stupid right? 

"I know it’s difficult for some people to pull out of their political atmosphere and study the facts objectively but for the “three” profile on this thread it’s an impossible task"

As I demonstrated in my post, you're the person who has a problem facing facts. We know this because instead of responding to the specific points raised, you resort to all sorts of irrelevant and dubious allegations. You have no fact based answer for the breakdown sources of CO2 in the atmosphere and chose a study that you believe backed your claim but clearly did not. If you're so biased as to draw false conclusions from a clearly worded study, why should anyone give credit to your accusations of bias.

[Danderman123]

52 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

 

Your inability to read the science proves nothing. All you ever post is political junk. 

So, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

[Danderman123]

42 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

This is the junk science that you are so dear to and your beloved IPCC is a proven corrupt cabal, you know it and I know it, but the difference is the religious cult of narrow minded focus that impedes understanding. Your only source is from political activists that conflate the science but you can’t see that because you can’t understand it. I know it’s difficult for some people to pull out of their political atmosphere and study the facts objectively but for the “three” profile on this thread it’s an impossible task. As I mentioned before, a millennials dilemma and irreparable. Can’t fix stupid right? 

Can you post any data that disproves the Global Warming hypothesis?

Edited August 30, 2023 by Danderman123

[khunJam]

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

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!!" ??

Oh I’ve read everything. No evidence has been posted here at all that proves humans are responsible for any climate change. As others have pointed out and illustrated vary clearly is that there is a difference between an idea that correlates a hypothetical reasoning which you say is proof compared to a theory based on real world evidence of observation. All the claims and links that you anti oil people keep hammering at is simply a hypothesis as others already made clear. Also what is remarkably clear is none of have anything new. I have also taken the time to compare the data from computer models and observation, yes it is clearly biased. And again what many other people here have said and it is so clearly evident that you anti oil activists religious cult club members refuse to read the data. And it is also so very clear is that when a person posts good information you go on a internet scramble hunt to bury the truth. This is the playbook of the extremist left groups to push their anti human garbage. As another correctly put it, you are only hooping and whooping and hollering rabble rousing. No proof and proved nothing 

[khunJam]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Can you post any data that disproves the Global Warming hypothesis?

I have read many of your remarks, you are out of your league 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, khunJam said:

I have read many of your remarks, you are out of your league 

My league doesn't matter.

 

Can you post any data that contradicts the Global Warming hypothesis?

[khunJam]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

So, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

Isn’t this funny. Someone posted a link and you are not able to read it, too far above to reach

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, khunJam said:

Oh I’ve read everything. No evidence has been posted here at all that proves humans are responsible for any climate change. As others have pointed out and illustrated vary clearly is that there is a difference between an idea that correlates a hypothetical reasoning which you say is proof compared to a theory based on real world evidence of observation. All the claims and links that you anti oil people keep hammering at is simply a hypothesis as others already made clear. Also what is remarkably clear is none of have anything new. I have also taken the time to compare the data from computer models and observation, yes it is clearly biased. And again what many other people here have said and it is so clearly evident that you anti oil activists religious cult club members refuse to read the data. And it is also so very clear is that when a person posts good information you go on a internet scramble hunt to bury the truth. This is the playbook of the extremist left groups to push their anti human garbage. As another correctly put it, you are only hooping and whooping and hollering rabble rousing. No proof and proved nothing 

So, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

[Danderman123]

Just now, khunJam said:

Isn’t this funny. Someone posted a link and you are not able to read it, too far above to reach

Their link was non-responsive to my question of why the Stratosphere is cooling.

 

If you disagree, how does the linked article explain Stratospheric cooling?

[khunJam]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

My league doesn't matter.

 

Can you post any data that contradicts the Global Warming hypothesis?

Oh it matters very much. If you knew anything about science hypotheses isn’t to be proven. The theory is tested. And no theory has been presented to prove.

[Danderman123]

Just now, khunJam said:

Oh it matters very much. If you knew anything about science hypotheses isn’t to be proven. The theory is tested. And no theory has been presented to prove.

Are you drunk?

[khunJam]

More importantly what is the politics that is motivating all this. This needs to looked at very closely, the who and what of it

[khunJam]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Are you drunk?

Your blip is off my radar, bye bye now 

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, khunJam said:

Oh I’ve read everything. No evidence has been posted here at all that proves humans are responsible for any climate change. As others have pointed out and illustrated vary clearly is that there is a difference between an idea that correlates a hypothetical reasoning which you say is proof compared to a theory based on real world evidence of observation. All the claims and links that you anti oil people keep hammering at is simply a hypothesis as others already made clear. 

When the climate models are set up how do you explain the “hind-casting.” process they go through to test how accurate they are?

 

When building models, accuracy is dependent on what? What also needs to be taken account of?

 

9 minutes ago, khunJam said:

I have also taken the time to compare the data from computer models and observation, yes it is clearly biased. 

Can you provide some samples of that?

 

10 minutes ago, khunJam said:

This is the playbook of the extremist left groups to push their anti human garbage. As another correctly put it, you are only hooping and whooping and hollering rabble rousing. No proof and proved nothing 

And you finish of with another of your rants..............

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, khunJam said:

Oh it matters very much. If you knew anything about science hypotheses isn’t to be proven. The theory is tested. And no theory has been presented to prove.

False. In fact even the early models of anthropogenic climate change were astonishingly good at predicting warming. They also predicted correctly the temperatures would rise faster at the poles, and that the stratosphere would cool.

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

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

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

False. In fact even the early models of anthropogenic climate change were astonishingly good at predicting warming. They also predicted correctly the temperatures would rise faster at the poles, and that the stratosphere would cool.

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

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

https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html

 

The early global warming predictions from Hansen were accurate.

 

Not so much Lindzen, the famous Denier.

[Danderman123]

27 minutes ago, khunJam said:

Isn’t this funny. Someone posted a link and you are not able to read it, too far above to reach

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

 

So, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

[khunJam]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

When building models, accuracy is dependent on what? What also needs to be taken account of?

An accurate model would need to be dependent on the entire phenomena, which would undergo an extensive undertaking. As of now the models are limited and by no means complete, and again the links were provided and you chose to bury them with garbage instead of reading. What keeps you from taking a look at this information and understanding it? I can only come to a conclusion is that even if you were able to analyze the and conceive that you are wrong, you would still deny it because as others have pointed out that it is a religious cult is why no one is taking any of you seriously 

[khunJam]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

False. In fact even the early models of anthropogenic climate change were astonishingly good at predicting warming. They also predicted correctly the temperatures would rise faster at the poles, and that the stratosphere would cool.

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

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

Another garbage link. Go read the science that you oppose and and let me know once you have a comprehensive study under your belt. If you want to understand what you claim to be factual then you need to understand what you claim isn’t fact. You only post links that are based on an assumption of hypothetical reasoning. Show me a theory that has been tested. 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, khunJam said:

An accurate model would need to be dependent on the entire phenomena, which would undergo an extensive undertaking. As of now the models are limited and by no means complete, 

Models do contain the entire phenomena within the SSP scenario's. May be you should check up on that?

 

4 minutes ago, khunJam said:

again the links were provided and you chose to bury them with garbage instead of reading. What keeps you from taking a look at this information and understanding it? 

I've looked at every link, which one proves your point?

 

5 minutes ago, khunJam said:

I can only come to a conclusion is that even if you were able to analyze the and conceive that you are wrong, you would still deny it because as others have pointed out that it is a religious cult is why no one is taking any of you seriously 

A little reflection on this statement would serve you well

[khunJam]

Everything you all keep asking for links and proof is already listed here. If you want to know go fetch it. Posting a summary here will only flood the thread. , it’s way too much.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, khunJam said:

Another garbage link. Go read the science that you oppose and and let me know once you have a comprehensive study under your belt. If you want to understand what you claim to be factual then you need to understand what you claim isn’t fact. You only post links that are based on an assumption of hypothetical reasoning. Show me a theory that has been tested. 

I just did show you a theory that has been tested. Clearly, you don't know what that looks like. And it's clear that whatever is under your belt, it has nothing to do with climate science. Opponents of ACC have also posted hypotheses. So far, they've failed to correctly predict climate changes.

Edited August 30, 2023 by placeholder

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, khunJam said:

Everything you all keep asking for links and proof is already listed here. If you want to know go fetch it. Posting a summary here will only flood the thread. , it’s way too much.

So you can't provide a link to your claims which are numerous, you can only rant. 

 

So here's a  link, please go ahead and provide a credible argument with sources that disputes it.

 

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

There’s an old saying that “the proof is in the pudding,” meaning that you can only truly gauge the quality of something once it’s been put to a test. Such is the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various factors that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface and the Sun.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

 

Calling it garbage or the playbook of the extremist left groups to push their anti human garbage is not evidence of anything other than your own ignorance in the evidence supplied

Edited August 30, 2023 by Bkk Brian