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

[ozimoron]

Why? Because gullibility and lack of critical thinking are epidemic in modern society.

 

Oil companies are paying popular influencers to pump their gas on social media, sparking a backlash from some climate-conscious fans for promoting planet-warming fossil fuels among young people.

 

Young online celebrities best known for posting about video games, their dogs or their holidays to millions of followers are also dropping in unexpected plugs for gasoline stations, fuel rewards and club cards.

 

https://nordot.app/1069458951108297066?c=592622757532812385

[khunJam]

23 hours ago, 0james0 said:

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,

This is exactly true and correct.

 

You people just want an easy answer. There is none. Leaning how the ocean affects the climate is much more than currents and temperatures. The same with organic mass & solar system influences on and on. But none of you are interested in expanding your knowledge, you want an easy short summarized answer. Besides all that, as far as theoretical science is concerned it has yet to been assembled, even worse it’s impeded due to the political influence and infighting of scientists. This is where you all are jammed up at. 

[khunJam]

15 hours ago, placeholder said:

Just in time for Hurricane Idalia.

Then please stop using any products developed by fossil energy immediately! Because it will stop the hurricane dead in its tracks.

[khunJam]

Anyhow, I appreciate the contrast you all have provided. I’m going to skip on over 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, khunJam said:

This is exactly true and correct.

 

You people just want an easy answer. There is none. Leaning how the ocean affects the climate is much more than currents and temperatures. The same with organic mass & solar system influences on and on. But none of you are interested in expanding your knowledge, you want an easy short summarized answer. Besides all that, as far as theoretical science is concerned it has yet to been assembled, even worse it’s impeded due to the political influence and infighting of scientists. This is where you all are jammed up at. 

Why don't you expand your knowledge a little, that way you wouldn't have to ask how solar etc affects the climate. Have you noticed that solar activity is going down yet the worlds temperature is still rising?

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

[ozimoron]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Why don't you expand your knowledge a little, that way you wouldn't have to ask how solar etc affects the climate. Have you noticed that solar activity is going down yet the worlds temperature is still rising?

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

Because only listening to the echo chamber keeps them in their comfort zone. But most importantly they don't want to sign on to anything that might cost them money or require them to do anything. More importantly, it looks like a problem that requires global cooperation and that runs against the grain. Climate change deniers are typically anti-globalists and anything which smells like an international agreement, especially a binding one, is kryptonite. The weapon of choice is to point at some other country and claim they aren't doing anything so we shouldn't either. Paradoxically, that's where the binding mandate would be most effective but they can't connect the dots. Easier to simply claim the problem is false or blame it anything except humans because that gets back to the need to do something. Solar activity is great. Among the really intellectually challenged, those on the left side of the IQ bell curve, solar activity sounds like a kinda, sorta plausible argument they can cling to.

[Peabody]

On 7/28/2023 at 5:08 PM, LukKrueng said:

Who has any records from 120k years ago?

The Earth

 

[Peabody]

45 minutes ago, khunJam said:

Then please stop using any products developed by fossil energy immediately! Because it will stop the hurricane dead in its tracks.

Tell me you failed science without saying you failed science.

[Yellowtail]

4 hours 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

Some of them were correct, just like some of the market models were correct. The modelers point at the ones that were correct. 

[Danderman123]

5 hours 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.

You have provided virtually zero links and proof so far.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Some of them were correct, just like some of the market models were correct. The modelers point at the ones that were correct. 

Except that the mainstream climate models have been consistently correct. If someobe could accurately predict market movement for 40 years, they would be insanely rich.

 

Whereas your man Lindzen made bad predictions.

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, khunJam said:

This is exactly true and correct.

 

You people just want an easy answer. There is none. Leaning how the ocean affects the climate is much more than currents and temperatures. The same with organic mass & solar system influences on and on. But none of you are interested in expanding your knowledge, you want an easy short summarized answer. Besides all that, as far as theoretical science is concerned it has yet to been assembled, even worse it’s impeded due to the political influence and infighting of scientists. This is where you all are jammed up at. 

so, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

[Shmo]

On 8/21/2023 at 9:18 AM, placeholder said:

Got a link to support that claim?

a long time ago and never restored!

https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/ozone-research-cuts-hit-canadian-arctic-scientists-layoffs-are-announced/2012/02/17/

 

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.1171728

 

 

https://www.rebelnews.com/trudeau_s_liberals_are_closing_weather_monitoring_stations_in_the_north

 

fwiw, I worked high arctic for over 20 years, I’ve been to some of these locations and many others. 

 

On 8/21/2023 at 9:18 AM, placeholder said:

From the landing page of the World News Forum:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

Please define “approved” by the standards used here.
FYI The Canadian government is just took control of all information on the Internet with Bill C18.
 

Nobody can speak of write news stories in Canada unless they are “approved” by the government. Facebook has stopped all link sharing of ANY news articles within Canada as a result of this.

Essentially, if you don’t follow the narrative or the government storyline allowed to speak openly on the Internet in Canada. 

Who “approves” what is a credible source?
those are our masters!

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, Shmo said:

a long time ago and never restored!

https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/ozone-research-cuts-hit-canadian-arctic-scientists-layoffs-are-announced/2012/02/17/

 

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.1171728

 

 

https://www.rebelnews.com/trudeau_s_liberals_are_closing_weather_monitoring_stations_in_the_north

 

fwiw, I worked high arctic for over 20 years, I’ve been to some of these locations and many others. 

 

Please define “approved” by the standards used here.
FYI The Canadian government is just took control of all information on the Internet with Bill C18.
 

Nobody can speak of write news stories in Canada unless they are “approved” by the government. Facebook has stopped all link sharing of ANY news articles within Canada as a result of this.

Essentially, if you don’t follow the narrative or the government storyline allowed to speak openly on the Internet in Canada. 

Who “approves” what is a credible source?
those are our masters!

Last things first: Nonsense. Meta (Facebook) stopped sharing stories because the Canadian government passed a law that made it illegal to freeload on stories published by Canadian media organizations.

Facebook and Instagram to block news in Canada

Meta has announced plans to remove all news content from Facebook and Instagram in Canada ahead of a new law coming into effect that would force the platforms to share revenue with publishers.

The Online News Act, known as Bill C-18, will force big technology companies to compensate news publishers for content that appears on their platforms, with Google also impacted by the legislation.

“Today, we are confirming that news availability will be ended on Facebook and Instagram for all users in Canada prior to the Online News Act (Bill C-18) taking effect,” Facebook said in a blog post.

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/meta-news-facebook-instagram-canada-b2362863.html

 

And, you're correct, there has been a trend to drop some weather stations. Especially those in the further north. However,  these weather stations that were dropped actually showed a greater warming trend than those that survived. That's because the closer to the poles one gets, the more pronounced is the warming trend (note that I didn't say warming is more pronounced, but the warming trend is more pronounced), 

Here's a link to a better explanation:

https://skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Some of them were correct, just like some of the market models were correct. The modelers point at the ones that were correct. 

If the people who projected the performance of the stock market were as accurate as this they could quit their jobs and make billions on stock options.

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, khunJam said:

Then please stop using any products developed by fossil energy immediately! Because it will stop the hurricane dead in its tracks.

You don't seem to understand that it's possible to taper off instead of going cold turkey.

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

If the people who projected the performance of the stock market were as accurate as this they could quit their jobs and make billions on stock options.

They do make billions. 

 

But the market models work the same as climate change models. They build multiple models, and run them with different inputs, and then point at the ones that are correct. 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

You don't seem to understand that it's possible to taper off instead of going cold turkey.

Yet despite all the silly renewables and social engineering we continue to produce more CO₂ every year. 

 

Stay the course fellas! 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

They do make billions. 

 

But the market models work the same as climate change models. They build multiple models, and run them with different inputs, and then point at the ones that are correct. 

 

 

 

 

Here's the link to the original research. It explains why the models were chosen. It is, in fact, a very complete survey. No cherry picking was involved.

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here's the link to the original research. It explains why the models were chosen. It is, in fact, a very complete survey. No cherry picking was involved.

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf

So how were the models chosen? 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

So how were the models chosen? 

It's in the original research. I've given you a link.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

It's in the original research. I've given you a link.

So you don't know, that's what I thought. 

 

In any event, I did not see much point in reading past this (from your link):

 

 

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you don't know, that's what I thought. 

 

In any event, I did not see much point in reading past this (from your link):

 

 

 

It's clear you don't understand what that means. Let me help you. When climatologists built their models, they plugged in numbers for CO2 that were future estimates. They couldn't know how much emissions there were actually going to be. When forcings were plugged into their models, they turned out to be very accurate.

 

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you don't know, that's what I thought. 

 

In any event, I did not see much point in reading past this (from your link):

 

 

 

All climate models are within this range, there are various scenarios based on emissions and policies in place to combat them with what happens if they are not implemented. There is no comparison to market models that has limited data input compared to the complexity of climate change.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[gamb00ler]

This is a great honeypot thread!  Facts vs fantasy at its finest.

 

I've learned a lot about unsound debate tactics.  Many of the questionable tactics are described here:

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/logical-fallacies

 

My future reading on AN will be much more enjoyable after the hopelessly misinformed self-identified herein are relegated to the round file.  Thank you one and all for one of the most useful AN threads.

 

 

 

[novacova]

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

This is a great honeypot thread!  Facts vs fantasy at its finest.

 

I've learned a lot about unsound debate tactics.  Many of the questionable tactics are described here:

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/logical-fallacies

 

My future reading on AN will be much more enjoyable after the hopelessly misinformed self-identified herein are relegated to the round file.  Thank you one and all for one of the most useful AN threads.

 

 

 

???? thanks @gamb00ler for epitomizing the convo-i-lution

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

It's clear you don't understand what that means. Let me help you. When climatologists built their models, they plugged in numbers for CO2 that were future estimates. They couldn't know how much emissions there were actually going to be. When forcings were plugged into their models, they turned out to be very accurate.

 

And I think it's clear you don't understand.  Why don't you just tell me how were the models chosen? Oh, that's right, you don't know. You (apparently) google-up something you hope supports your argument, but you really have no idea what it says. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And I think it's clear you don't understand.  Why don't you just tell me how were the models chosen? Oh, that's right, you don't know. You (apparently) google-up something you hope supports your argument, but you really have no idea what it says. 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So how were the models chosen? 

CMIP

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

CMIP

CYDKE

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

CYDKE

All you had to do was put that in google.

 

Your question was "So how were the models chosen?"

 

They were chosen after careful evaluation and must conform to CMIP 

 

The method of evaluation here pdf IPCC download

 

Over 195 countries form part of IPCC and for the latest report and models AR6 more than 30 institutions contributed to over 40 models ultimately used.