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

[Yellowtail]

43 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

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.

Yeah, I saw that. Per you, they developed something in the '90s to select which of the models to use from the '70s. 

 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, I saw that. Per you, they developed something in the '90s to select which of the models to use from the '70s. 

 

74 pages of the evaluation process and that's what you come up with, basic grade science student would do better than that. Obviously your trolling and don't really want to know. The full information has been given to you, up to you what snippet you take away......

[placeholder]

1 hour 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. 

 

 

I'm giving you exactly as much detailed information as you gave Danderman when you posted a link in reply to his question, (see below) The difference is that my link actually leads to relevant information. Whereas the link you posted led to information that was utterly irrelevant to the question asked.

On 8/22/2023 at 12:38 PM, Danderman123 said:

How does the Sun cool the Stratosphere?

 

Are you saying that solar output is declining? If so, why is Earth warming?

 

 

 

On 8/22/2023 at 12:44 PM, Yellowtail said:

stratospheric-cooling-ESPHERE-encyclopedia.pdf (harvard.edu)

 

[Yellowtail]

15 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

74 pages of the evaluation process and that's what you come up with, basic grade science student would do better than that. Obviously your trolling and don't really want to know. The full information has been given to you, up to you what snippet you take away......

I'd like to know how they were selected, but neither of you can tell me. You guys both know I'm stupid and that you guys are really smart, why don't you just tell me? If you could, you would. 

 

All we know from the links provided, is (per you link) they decided how to select the models, twenty years after the models were developed, and all we know from placeholder's link is that something over half of the models selected were reasonably accurate. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I'd like to know how they were selected, but neither of you can tell me. You guys both know I'm stupid and that you guys are really smart, why don't you just tell me? If you could, you would. 

 

All we know from the links provided, is (per you link) they decided how to select the models, twenty years after the models were developed, and all we know from placeholder's link is that something over half of the models selected were reasonably accurate. 

 

 

You guys both know I'm stupid

 

Your words. 

 

All we know from the links provided, is (per you link) they decided how to select the models, twenty years after the models were developed

 

Wrong that's all you know apparently and totally out of context with all the numerous parameters required. But in keeping with your own admission above.

[Danderman123]

57 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, I saw that. Per you, they developed something in the '90s to select which of the models to use from the '70s. 

 

James Hansen testified in the Senate about impending global warming. He accurately predicted the global increase in temperature, and described the mechanisms creating that climate change.

 

His detractors at the time were proven wrong.

 

[Danderman123]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I'd like to know how they were selected, but neither of you can tell me. You guys both know I'm stupid and that you guys are really smart, why don't you just tell me? If you could, you would. 

 

All we know from the links provided, is (per you link) they decided how to select the models, twenty years after the models were developed, and all we know from placeholder's link is that something over half of the models selected were reasonably accurate. 

 

 

What you don't get is that scientists uncovered the mechanisms driving increased temperature.  

 

Because you are ill-informed, you are focused on predictions, which are the output, rather than the process of making the predictions.

 

You don't seem informed sufficiently to make an educated critique of the science.

 

Do you agree that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm over the last 40 years?

[Danderman123]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I'd like to know how they were selected, but neither of you can tell me. You guys both know I'm stupid and that you guys are really smart, why don't you just tell me? If you could, you would. 

 

All we know from the links provided, is (per you link) they decided how to select the models, twenty years after the models were developed, and all we know from placeholder's link is that something over half of the models selected were reasonably accurate. 

 

 

What you need to know is:

 

CO2 levels have increased dramatically.

 

Most of that additional CO2 is manmade.

 

CO2 traps heat in the lower atmosphere - more CO2, more heating.

 

Therefore, global temperatures rise as CO2 levels rise.

 

It's not rocket science.

 

Is there any part of this you don't understand?

[Danderman123]

2 hours 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. 

 

 

You don't understand the modeling process.

 

There are many institutions and agencies worldwide producing climate models. These models roughly agree. 

 

IPCC also produces models.

 

There is no mysterious process for "choosing" models.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I'd like to know how they were selected, but neither of you can tell me. You guys both know I'm stupid and that you guys are really smart, why don't you just tell me? If you could, you would. 

 

All we know from the links provided, is (per you link) they decided how to select the models, twenty years after the models were developed, and all we know from placeholder's link is that something over half of the models selected were reasonably accurate. 

 

 

False. In fact over half the the models were unreasonably accurate. Their algorithms produce results that are statistically insignificant from the actual measured reality. 

[ozimoron]

Health authorities in Paris fumigated areas of the French capital for the first time on Thursday to kill disease-carrying tiger mosquitoes whose rapid advance through northern Europe is thought to have been accelerated by climate change.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/paris-fumigates-for-tiger-mosquitoes-as-pest-spreads-in-europe/

 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:11 AM, ozimoron said:

Health authorities in Paris fumigated areas of the French capital for the first time on Thursday to kill disease-carrying tiger mosquitoes whose rapid advance through northern Europe is thought to have been accelerated by climate change.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/paris-fumigates-for-tiger-mosquitoes-as-pest-spreads-in-europe/

". . . thought to have been accelerated by climate change."

Everyone understands the scam of the phrasing.  What "thought to be" really means is "due to climate change unless otherwise proven not to be."  So much is "thought to be" due to climate change yet no empirical proof tying the two together exists.

empirical
- derived from or guided by direct experience or by experiment, rather than abstract principles or theory

All of these "thought to be" statements are derived from abstract principles or theories yet they're deceptively repeated again and again for the sole purpose of implying that there is a connection between event "X" and climate change.  News flash:  when people understand the scam they can no longer be fooled and recognise all of the deceptive mechanism used immediately.

Why do climate change believers need to resort to deceptive practices?  When people resort to deceptive practices what statement does it make about them?

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

". . . thought to have been accelerated by climate change."

Everyone understands the scam of the phrasing.  What "thought to be" really means is "due to climate change unless otherwise proven not to be."  So much is "thought to be" due to climate change yet no empirical proof tying the two together exists.

empirical
- derived from or guided by direct experience or by experiment, rather than abstract principles or theory

All of these "thought to be" statements are derived from abstract principles or theories yet they're deceptively repeated again and again for the sole purpose of implying that there is a connection between event "X" and climate change.  News flash:  when people understand the scam they can no longer be fooled and recognise all of the deceptive mechanism used immediately.

Why do climate change believers need to resort to deceptive practices?  When people resort to deceptive practices what statement does it make about them?

...had the "earmarks" of Russian disinformation climate change...

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

". . . thought to have been accelerated by climate change."

Everyone understands the scam of the phrasing.  What "thought to be" really means is "due to climate change unless otherwise proven not to be."  So much is "thought to be" due to climate change yet no empirical proof tying the two together exists.

empirical
- derived from or guided by direct experience or by experiment, rather than abstract principles or theory

All of these "thought to be" statements are derived from abstract principles or theories yet they're deceptively repeated again and again for the sole purpose of implying that there is a connection between event "X" and climate change.  News flash:  when people understand the scam they can no longer be fooled and recognise all of the deceptive mechanism used immediately.

Why do climate change believers need to resort to deceptive practices?  When people resort to deceptive practices what statement does it make about them?

With warmer weather shortening the incubation period for its eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests. The "thought to have been accelerated by climate change" is an appropriate comment. 

 

The rest you just made up...

[Tippaporn]

On 8/31/2023 at 9:10 PM, placeholder said:

False. In fact over half the the models were unreasonably accurate. Their algorithms produce results that are statistically insignificant from the actual measured reality. 

Still up to your old tricks, eh placeholder?

Climate change denier:  White.
placeholder:  False!

Climate change denier:  Black.
placeholder:  False!
Climate change denier:  Colorless.
placeholder:  That's false, too!

 

Still not interested in actually learning anything?  Just parroting what you've been told by your side.  Parroting because you are not yourself actively involved in any climate change studies or research.  All of your information comes from one side of the debate and that side is beyond fallible.  Your side is 100% right all of the time and the other side is 100% wrong all of the time.  Seriously, do you call that a real world?  Or a make believe world?

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

With warmer weather shortening the incubation period for its eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests. The "thought to have been accelerated by climate change" is an appropriate comment. 

 

The rest you just made up...

empirical
- derived from or guided by direct experience or by experiment, rather than abstract principles or theory

Let me ask you what part of the above definition applies to what you wrote?

And no, I do not expect you to ever give an honest answer based on our last exchange.  You had, by your own hand, destroyed your credibility 100%.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

empirical
- derived from or guided by direct experience or by experiment, rather than abstract principles or theory

Let me ask you what part of the above definition applies to what you wrote?

And no, I do not expect you to ever give an honest answer based on our last exchange.  You had, by your own hand, destroyed your credibility 100%.

I just gave you the scientific facts. Let me repeat it for you:

 

Warmer weather shortens the incubation period of mosquito eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests. Read the article by the expert, which you are not.

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I just gave you the scientific facts. Let me repeat it for you:

 

Warmer weather shortens the incubation period of mosquito eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests. Read the article by the expert, which you are not.

"I just gave you the scientific facts theory."

Corrected to make it true.

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I just gave you the scientific facts. Let me repeat it for you:

 

Warmer weather shortens the incubation period of mosquito eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests. Read the article by the expert, which you are not.

"I just gave you the scientific facts theory."

Corrected to make it true.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"I just gave you the scientific facts theory."

Corrected to make it true.

An evidence-based theory based on a number of facts:

 

References to those facts in the article citations.

 

Temperature and Dengue Virus Infection in Mosquitoes: Independent Effects on the Immature and Adult Stages

Temperature is regarded as one of the most important abiotic environmental factors affecting biological processes of mosquitoes, including interactions with arboviruses. Seasonal and geographic differences in temperature and anticipated climate change undoubtedly influence mosquito population dynamics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592531/

 

 

 

 

[owl sees all]

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

All of these "thought to be" statements are derived from abstract principles or theories yet they're deceptively repeated again and again for the sole purpose of implying that there is a connection between event "X" and climate change.  News flash:  when people understand the scam they can no longer be fooled and recognise all of the deceptive mechanism used immediately.

These, 'thought to be' statements, are often simply made up. They are not challenged by the MSM, and are gradually - through constant reinforcement of the same, unopposed, narrative - etched into people's minds. . It's in the schools now. The farmer - and the cow - is now being demonised. As is any free-thinker, who happens not to agree with the GW/CC absurdity.

 

Mr Assange once said; '''The most effective weapon leaders have, is keeping the people in ignorance.'''

[Yellowtail]

45 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I just gave you the scientific facts. Let me repeat it for you:

 

Warmer weather shortens the incubation period of mosquito eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests. Read the article by the expert, which you are not.

The article was not by an "expert", it was by a for profit news agency.

 

That you do not understand that explains a lot. 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The article was not by an "expert", it was by a for profit news agency.

 

That you do not understand that explains a lot. 

"Health experts say it has thrived on the continent in part because of climate change, with warmer weather shortening the incubation period for its eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests."

 

Which happens to be factually correct. 

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

An evidence-based theory based on a number of facts:

 

References to those facts in the article citations.

 

Temperature and Dengue Virus Infection in Mosquitoes: Independent Effects on the Immature and Adult Stages

Temperature is regarded as one of the most important abiotic environmental factors affecting biological processes of mosquitoes, including interactions with arboviruses. Seasonal and geographic differences in temperature and anticipated climate change undoubtedly influence mosquito population dynamics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592531/

From the article:

"Specifically, we hypothesize that cool rearing temperature of immature stages (1) buffers against life-shortening effects of warm holding conditions of adults and (2) reduces rates of dengue-1 virus infection and dissemination of adults."

"Hypothesize" isn't even at the level of theory.  It's a guess at this stage.

Aside from the question of how warm weather affects tiger mosquitoes the "given" is that the warm weather was itself due to "climate change."  It's all deceptively implied.

Now let's all sing together, "We believe in climate change . . . "  For it truly is only a belief.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

From the article:

"Specifically, we hypothesize that cool rearing temperature of immature stages (1) buffers against life-shortening effects of warm holding conditions of adults and (2) reduces rates of dengue-1 virus infection and dissemination of adults."

"Hypothesize" isn't even at the level of theory.  It's a guess at this stage.

Aside from the question of how warm weather affects tiger mosquitoes the "given" is that the warm weather was itself due to "climate change."  It's all deceptively implied.

Now let's all sing together, "We believe in climate change . . . "  For it truly is only a belief.

Now let's all sing together, "We believe in climate change . . . "  For it truly is only a belief.

 

I suggest you lament your ability to take out of context one sentence from a study that provides evidence that "Seasonal and geographic differences in temperature and anticipated climate change undoubtedly influence mosquito population dynamics"

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The article was not by an "expert", it was by a for profit news agency.

 

That you do not understand that explains a lot. 

It's not at all a case in which he doesn't understand.  He chooses not to.  Just as showing him he was asked numerous times to answer whether consensus equates to truth and he blatantly denied he was asked numerous times even after providing him the complete facts.  No, it's not a failure of comprehension at all.  It's a willingness to refute and to refute no matter what.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Now let's all sing together, "We believe in climate change . . . "  For it truly is only a belief.

 

I suggest you lament your ability to take out of context one sentence from a study that provides evidence that "Seasonal and geographic differences in temperature and anticipated climate change undoubtedly influence mosquito population dynamics"

The most favoured go-to whenever undeniable evidence is provided and it cannot be ignored, dodged or spun.  "Out of context." 

Me, personally, I'm so sick of hearing that worn out deflection.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

The most favoured go-to whenever undeniable evidence is provided and it cannot be ignored, dodged or spun.  "Out of context." 

Me, personally, I'm so sick of hearing that worn out deflection.

Do you have any evidence to dispute this assertion? Feel free to provide some, I'll wait.

[spidermike007]

The skeptic will argue that anything we do could not possibly influence the climate, or effect the atmosphere. The planet is simply too large, and the population is too small to have any effect. Let the ships dump whatever they want into the ocean. The ocean is simply too large for anything we do to damage it. 

 

This frees us to buy as many plastic bottles as we please, drive filthy diesel vehicles, and behave as if nothing effects anything. 

 

It's not us. It is just a cycle. We are not responsible. Don't blame us. It is the cows! 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Still up to your old tricks, eh placeholder?

Climate change denier:  White.
placeholder:  False!

Climate change denier:  Black.
placeholder:  False!
Climate change denier:  Colorless.
placeholder:  That's false, too!

 

Still not interested in actually learning anything?  Just parroting what you've been told by your side.  Parroting because you are not yourself actively involved in any climate change studies or research.  All of your information comes from one side of the debate and that side is beyond fallible.  Your side is 100% right all of the time and the other side is 100% wrong all of the time.  Seriously, do you call that a real world?  Or a make believe world?

Just like 0James0, when confronted with hard facts you resort to generalizations.