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

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Hong Kong just had the heaviest rainfall on record.

Meanwhile, you guys can continue to pretend Climate Change isn't happening.

I can't fix it, so I don't worry about it.

[Danderman123]

15 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I can't fix it, so I don't worry about it.

Eventually, you can fix it by moving to another planet.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 2:07 PM, Danderman123 said:

BTW, where are oil industry conferences held? 

As long as they are not paid for by the taxpayer it doesn't matter where they are held.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Hong Kong just had the heaviest rainfall on record.

 

Meanwhile, you guys can continue to pretend Climate Change isn't happening.

Don't know who you are referring to. No one I've read on here is saying that climate change is not happening.

 

Perhaps you can quote someone said that?

[Danderman123]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't know who you are referring to. No one I've read on here is saying that climate change is not happening.

 

Perhaps you can quote someone said that?

No, your internet friends have taught you to say that climate is always changing and that the current warming is natural.

 

But your internet friends haven't told you what natural forces are increasing in intensity to cause the current warming, so you are stuck. And when asked the question, you have to change the subject, or answer in a non-responsive manner.

 

For that matter, you can't answer why the Stratosphere is cooling, despite the planetary cooling. It would seem that you don't the curiosity to even wonder about it.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Danderman123

[thaibeachlovers]

34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

No, your internet friends have taught you to say that climate is always changing and that the current warming is natural.

 

But your internet friends haven't told you what natural forces are increasing in intensity to cause the current warming, so you are stuck. And when asked the question, you have to change the subject, or answer in a non-responsive manner.

 

For that matter, you can't answer why the Stratosphere is cooling, despite the planetary cooling. It would seem that you don't the curiosity to even wonder about it.

Soooo, you can't quote anyone saying climate change is not happening. OK.

 

You never asked me why the stratosphere is cooling, and I don't care if it is.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Soooo, you can't quote anyone saying climate change is not happening. OK.

 

You never asked me why the stratosphere is cooling, and I don't care if it is.

The current warming is caused by manmade pollutants in the atmosphere. The same pollutants are indirectly causing Stratosoheric cooling.

 

And yes, your lack of intellectual curiosity, coupled with your eagerness to disseminate canned talking points you read on the internet, are fairly evident here.

 

There are no natural forces causing increased Stratospheric cooling. But this artifact of human induced global warming is outside your mental paradigm, so you ignore it.  A classic case of cognitive dissonance.

[Yellowtail]

39 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The current warming is caused by manmade pollutants in the atmosphere. The same pollutants are indirectly causing Stratosoheric cooling.

 

And yes, your lack of intellectual curiosity, coupled with your eagerness to disseminate canned talking points you read on the internet, are fairly evident here.

 

There are no natural forces causing increased Stratospheric cooling. But this artifact of human induced global warming is outside your mental paradigm, so you ignore it.  A classic case of cognitive dissonance.

Do you have anything that supports your false statement; "There are no natural forces causing increased Stratospheric cooling."

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your false statement; "There are no natural forces causing increased Stratospheric cooling."

No.

 

Because they don't exist.

 

I know what is causing Stratospheric cooling. Do you?

 

Please don't send a link to some paper that is off-topic. Even if it's a paper that discusses natural forces that previously caused Stratospheric cooling, but are nit in play now.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

No.

As always. 

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Because they don't exist.

I know. 

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

I know what is causing Stratospheric cooling.

I doubt that. 

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Do you?

Yes

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Please don't send a link to some paper that is off-topic. Even if it's a paper that discusses natural forces that previously caused Stratospheric cooling, but are nit in play now.

I won't, I only wanted to point out that you are yet again making another false claim. You do that a lot.

 

Stay the course! 

 

[Danderman123]

55 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As always. 

I know. 

I doubt that. 

Yes

I won't, I only wanted to point out that you are yet again making another false claim. You do that a lot.

 

Stay the course! 

 

The cause of stratospheric cooling is both well known, and an unanswerable question for Global Warming Deniers.

 

It's great for determining which of the Deniers are so deep down the rabbit hole that they ignore data outside their paradigm. I'm sure such data is just annoying to them.

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your false statement; "There are no natural forces causing increased Stratospheric cooling."

Danderman123 may not. But I do. But before I provide that information, let me point out the cluelessness of you asking for evidence to support an assertion that you categorize as false. Confused much? Anyway, here's the evidence:

 

Key takeaways

• A UCLA-led study is the first to search for human-caused climate patterns in the middle and upper stratosphere.
• The research found that temperature decreases in the stratosphere over the past three decades have been caused by humans, not nature.
• According to the study, cooling in the middle and upper stratosphere is a consequence of human-caused increases in greenhouse gases, which cause heat to be retained more effectively in the troposphere, the lowest level of the atmosphere.

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-fingerprinting

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The current warming is caused by manmade pollutants in the atmosphere. The same pollutants are indirectly causing Stratosoheric cooling.

 

And yes, your lack of intellectual curiosity, coupled with your eagerness to disseminate canned talking points you read on the internet, are fairly evident here.

 

There are no natural forces causing increased Stratospheric cooling. But this artifact of human induced global warming is outside your mental paradigm, so you ignore it.  A classic case of cognitive dissonance.

Yada yada yada, attack attack attack, insult, insult insult. By your rude words one really doesn't care what you think anymore.

 

Rather than try to convince by reasoned words, you attack other posters and then wonder why they don't agree with you.

 

Bye.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just watching the floods in Libya and gosh, nature ( Gaia ) is really dealing to humans, isn't it!

 

The song In the year 2525 come to mind, and that was written long before the MMCC frenzy.

 

NB the chorus. Pretty relevant date given the increase in natural disasters. I don't think we have to wait till 8510 for the end of us.

In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find

 

If God's a coming, He oughta make it by then
Maybe He'll look around Himself and say
Guess it's time for the judgment day
In the year 8510
God is gonna shake His mighty head
He'll either say I'm pleased where man has been
Or tear it down, and start again
In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing
Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through
But through eternal night, the twinkling of starlight
So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday
In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

Danderman123 may not. But I do. But before I provide that information, let me point out the cluelessness of you asking for evidence to support an assertion that you categorize as false. Confused much? Anyway, here's the evidence:

 

Key takeaways

• A UCLA-led study is the first to search for human-caused climate patterns in the middle and upper stratosphere.
• The research found that temperature decreases in the stratosphere over the past three decades have been caused by humans, not nature.
• According to the study, cooling in the middle and upper stratosphere is a consequence of human-caused increases in greenhouse gases, which cause heat to be retained more effectively in the troposphere, the lowest level of the atmosphere.

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-fingerprinting

Amazingly, none of the Climate Change Deniers could find that on the Google.

 

Or any other reason for Stratospheric cooling.

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Danderman123 may not. But I do. But before I provide that information, let me point out the cluelessness of you asking for evidence to support an assertion that you categorize as false. Confused much? Anyway, here's the evidence:

 

Key takeaways

• A UCLA-led study is the first to search for human-caused climate patterns in the middle and upper stratosphere.
• The research found that temperature decreases in the stratosphere over the past three decades have been caused by humans, not nature.
• According to the study, cooling in the middle and upper stratosphere is a consequence of human-caused increases in greenhouse gases, which cause heat to be retained more effectively in the troposphere, the lowest level of the atmosphere.

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-fingerprinting

I maintain it is a false statement. 

 

The cluelessness of your inability to see that is quite telling. 

 

I assume you either did not read it or did not understand it. From your link: "The temperature changes in the stratosphere were 12 to 15 times greater than what could have been caused by nature."

 

So clearly, nature must be having some effect, because 12-15 times zero is still zero, and we all agree that the Earth is warming. What was your major again? 

 

You guys crack me up. 

 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Amazingly, none of the Climate Change Deniers could find that on the Google.

 

Or any other reason for Stratospheric cooling.

Amazingly, the alarmist that made the claim was not able to find it either. 

[Danderman123]

33 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Amazingly, the alarmist that made the claim was not able to find it either. 

Gewz, it was just posted here yesterday.

 

As for being an alarmist, feel free to quote me being alarmist. 

 

My position is that global warming is manmade, not that we are all going to die tomorrow from it.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Danderman123

[khunJam]

On 9/9/2023 at 4:31 PM, placeholder said:

Here's a link to the peer reviewers comments that show the emptiness of Patrick Brown's claim of bias.  And Patrick Brown's replies. You will see that he argued against making the research more inclusive.

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-06444-3/MediaObjects/41586_2023_6444_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

 

 

 

 

You conflicted this document, because either you don’t understand the process or you’re only here to deliver rino poop.

 

Here is what you fail to understand, the process of peer review. 

“This is my third publication in Nature to go along with another in Nature’s climate-focused journal Nature Climate Change. I have also served as an expert peer reviewer for both journals as well as Nature Communications and Nature Geoscience. Through this experience, as well as through various failures to get research published in these journals, I have learned that there is a formula for success which I enumerate below in a four-item checklist. Unfortunately, the formula is more about shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating useful knowledge for society.

In order for scientific research to be as useful as possible, it should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, commitment to uncovering the truth, and practicality. However, scientific research is carried out by people, and people tend to subconsciously prioritize more immediate personal goals tied to meaning, status, and professional advancement. Aligning the personal incentives that researchers face with the production of the most valuable information for society is critical for the public to get what it deserves from the research that they largely fund, but the current reality falls far short of this ideal.”

https://patricktbrown.org/?ssp=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=off

 

He clearly outlined the bias in the community and the challenges that many have to do to circumvent the belief system in the community that hinders progress.
 

Either way you have no credibility. You seem to only scrounge for anything that conflates and or twists the facts. Which is a lie. 
 

You posted a link to a document that is a  discussion of process then you conflate and customize in your post to justify your irrational position. This is what you do throughout the thread. Bottom line is that you are incapable of identifying any specific proof that climate change is human caused, but you are good at clinging on to the hypothesis and quoting conflating information with a lot of fluff and catchphrase. Your credibility is below zero and is no wonder why I noticed many have stopped responding to your predictable nonsense, either by being ignored or glossed over.

[khunJam]

On 9/7/2023 at 6:32 PM, placeholder said:

Scientific evidence?

Yes scientific evidence. I’m sure you believe that the Sun rises from the east and sets to the west every day.

[khunJam]

On 9/7/2023 at 12:37 PM, Tippaporn said:

You see no tie-ins whatsoever.  No connections.  Your science is completely insulated from money and politics.  No outside pressure whatsoever.  All scientists are operating with utter objectivity, no bias, utterly altruistic.  Well, your scientists, to be sure.  The scientists on the other side of the fence are completely driven by money and politics, are unduly pressured by outside interests, possess no objectivity and operate only with severe bias, and have sinister intentions of allowing the world to be destroyed despite knowing full well that they're wrong.

Well said Tippaporn, and what is so obvious starting at the beginning of this thread is the climate cult were posting news articles that was used to influence their beliefs and as the thread progressed and challenges were raised, then they chase with conflated data that shows no real evidence, only correlations and hypothesis claiming to be factual. It’s a craft of influence being succumbed by the believers that have no real understanding of what they are talking about.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, khunJam said:

You conflicted this document, because either you don’t understand the process or you’re only here to deliver rino poop.

 

Here is what you fail to understand, the process of peer review. 

“This is my third publication in Nature to go along with another in Nature’s climate-focused journal Nature Climate Change. I have also served as an expert peer reviewer for both journals as well as Nature Communications and Nature Geoscience. Through this experience, as well as through various failures to get research published in these journals, I have learned that there is a formula for success which I enumerate below in a four-item checklist. Unfortunately, the formula is more about shaping your research in specific ways to support pre-approved narratives than it is about generating useful knowledge for society.

In order for scientific research to be as useful as possible, it should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, commitment to uncovering the truth, and practicality. However, scientific research is carried out by people, and people tend to subconsciously prioritize more immediate personal goals tied to meaning, status, and professional advancement. Aligning the personal incentives that researchers face with the production of the most valuable information for society is critical for the public to get what it deserves from the research that they largely fund, but the current reality falls far short of this ideal.”

https://patricktbrown.org/?ssp=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=off

 

He clearly outlined the bias in the community and the challenges that many have to do to circumvent the belief system in the community that hinders progress.
 

Either way you have no credibility. You seem to only scrounge for anything that conflates and or twists the facts. Which is a lie. 
 

You posted a link to a document that is a  discussion of process then you conflate and customize in your post to justify your irrational position. This is what you do throughout the thread. Bottom line is that you are incapable of identifying any specific proof that climate change is human caused, but you are good at clinging on to the hypothesis and quoting conflating information with a lot of fluff and catchphrase. Your credibility is below zero and is no wonder why I noticed many have stopped responding to your predictable nonsense, either by being ignored or glossed over.

Apparently, you believe that Patrick Brown's assertions are dispositive. But, as the evidence shows, there was strong pushback from the reviewers concerning the research he submitted. In fact, Patrick Brown fought against the reviewers strongly expressed views that he make his research paper inclusive of other causes. Which makes his claim  that research which offers greater inclusiveness is censored a lie.

 

In addition to which, as others have pointed out, in the very same edition of Nature in which his research was published, there were three articles that in various ways argued for greater inclusiveness when referring to causation in relation to extreme weather and disasters. This directly contradicts Brown's claim that such research is censored.

 

Finally, not even Brown argues that human caused climate change is not a real thing. Rather, he claims it is overstressed as a cause of extreme weather and disasters.

Edited September 12, 2023 by placeholder

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, khunJam said:

Well said Tippaporn, and what is so obvious starting at the beginning of this thread is the climate cult were posting news articles that was used to influence their beliefs and as the thread progressed and challenges were raised, then they chase with conflated data that shows no real evidence, only correlations and hypothesis claiming to be factual. It’s a craft of influence being succumbed by the believers that have no real understanding of what they are talking about.

It's clear that you know little to nothing about the history of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. This theory were not formulated after the fact. Rather they predicted the accelerated rate of warming. And not just predicted it, but the majority predicted it to an astonishing degree of accuracy. In addition the theory also predicted that the poles would warm at a faster rate than the rest of the globe. And, in what was truly remarkable prediction, it predicted that the stratosphere would actually cool while the troposphere warmed.

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

It's clear that you know little to nothing about the history of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. This theory were not formulated after the fact. Rather they predicted the accelerated rate of warming. And not just predicted it, but the majority predicted it to an astonishing degree of accuracy. In addition the theory also predicted that the poles would warm at a faster rate than the rest of the globe. And, in what was truly remarkable prediction, it predicted that the stratosphere would actually cool while the troposphere warmed.

The "majority" meaning lightly more than half. 

 

The only people astonished by the accuracy are the true believers...

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

The "majority" meaning lightly more than half. 

 

The only people astonished by the accuracy are the true believers...

You keep on repeating the falsehood that "lightly" (I presume you meant to type "slightly") more than half. Actually it was 14 out of 17 got it right. But surely, you, as an self-alleged STEM major understand what the significance is of the fact that algorithms of most also got results that were statistically insignificant from what measurements actually showed. That's remarkable. Of course, if you're not a  STEM major graduate, you might  believe that it's a question of predicting only whether or not global warming is attributable to human activity. A yes or no question.  And that such things as an astonishing level of accuracy are unimportant. But that would mean you weren't being truthful about your field of study, wouldn't it?

[Yellowtail]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

You keep on repeating the falsehood that "lightly" (I presume you meant to type "slightly") more than half. Actually it was 14 out of 17 got it right.

Of the projections they chose to include. 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

But surely, you, as an self-alleged STEM major understand what the significance is of the fact that algorithms of most also got results that were statistically insignificant from what measurements actually showed. That's remarkable. Of course, if you're not a  STEM major graduate, you might  believe that it's a question of predicting only whether or not global warming is attributable to human activity. A yes or no question.  And that such things as an astonishing level of accuracy are unimportant. But that would mean you weren't being truthful about your field of study, wouldn't it?

Anyone that thinks it remarkable that being "...statistically insignificant from what measurements actually showed." has no real understanding of statistics. 

 

Stay the course! 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Of the projections they chose to include. 

Anyone that thinks it remarkable that being "...statistically insignificant from what measurements actually showed." has no real understanding of statistics. 

 

Stay the course! 

Really? The essence of science is a theory or model that predicts accurately.  Models that were hypothesized before the advent of rapid global warmng, yet predicted it accurately, is not a remarkable achievement? Are you actually claiming that this is not strong confirmation of these  models? 

 

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Of the projections they chose to include. 

Had you actually read the piece you would know why Hausfather chose those models. And the criterion wasn't the results.

[gamb00ler]

For those claiming that more CO₂ is good for the planet:

 

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/#:~:text=As CO2 soaks up this,contributing to the 'greenhouse effect.

 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

For those claiming that more CO₂ is good for the planet:

 

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/#:~:text=As CO2 soaks up this,contributing to the 'greenhouse effect.

 

Would the World be better with no CO₂?