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

[Yellowtail]

On 9/13/2023 at 8:32 PM, placeholder said:

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

Why were those models chosen? 

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why were those models chosen? 

"We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early-1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, at a minimum)...

 

The specific models projections evaluated were Manabe, 1970 (hereafter Ma70), Mitchell, 1970 (Mi70), Benson, 1970 (B70), Rasool & Schneider, 1971 (RS71), Sawyer, 1972 (S72), Broecker, 1975 (B75), Nordhaus, 1977 (N77), Schneider & Thompson, 1981 (ST81), Hansen et al., 1981 (H81), Hansen et al., 1988 (H88), and Manabe & Stouffer, 1993 (MS93). The energy balance model projections featured in the main text of the FAR, SAR, and TAR were examined, while the CMIP3 multimodel mean (and spread) was examined for the AR4 (multimodel means were not used as the primary IPCC projections featured in the main text prior to the AR4). Details about how each individual model projection was digitized and analyzed as well as assessments of individual models included in the first three IPCC reports can be found in the supporting information."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

"We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early-1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, at a minimum)...

 

The specific models projections evaluated were Manabe, 1970 (hereafter Ma70), Mitchell, 1970 (Mi70), Benson, 1970 (B70), Rasool & Schneider, 1971 (RS71), Sawyer, 1972 (S72), Broecker, 1975 (B75), Nordhaus, 1977 (N77), Schneider & Thompson, 1981 (ST81), Hansen et al., 1981 (H81), Hansen et al., 1988 (H88), and Manabe & Stouffer, 1993 (MS93). The energy balance model projections featured in the main text of the FAR, SAR, and TAR were examined, while the CMIP3 multimodel mean (and spread) was examined for the AR4 (multimodel means were not used as the primary IPCC projections featured in the main text prior to the AR4). Details about how each individual model projection was digitized and analyzed as well as assessments of individual models included in the first three IPCC reports can be found in the supporting information."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378

You are reposting (I think) the same thing you posted before. It only describes the criteria used to make the selections, not why.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You are reposting (I think) the same thing you posted before. It only describes the criteria used to make the selections, not why.

Actually, it should be very easy to figure out why those criteria were selected. It's not incumbent upon me to provide an explanation when one is offered by the article. The explanation in the article about why these criteria were chosen is accessible even to folks, who, unlike you, weren't STEM majors. For you, it should be a snap.

[gwapofarang]

On 8/22/2023 at 5:51 PM, ozimoron said:

Any excuse to be able to propagate lies without referencing them.

On the contrary, I bring receipts and prove fact then it's rewritten "conveniently" or slanted to guard the deception. Like the fake Trump thread winding folks up on lies then renaming it as I clearly called out disinformation and utterly fake claims with actual video from the horses mouth. I could go on in nauseam it's a waste of time.

 

Anybody with common sense clearly sees the hidden hand in plain site. People are awake and well aware what's going on. If and when things go South it's the useful idiots that go first. Good day sir.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 11:59 AM, Danderman123 said:

Since the topic is about warming, do you think the Sun is making the Earth warmer than before? Do you really believe that increased Solar output is responsible for the last 40 years of warming?

What I believe is that we don't know everything about nature, as our science is far too primitive. Obviously the sun is the source of heat, but conditions in the atmosphere may be controlled by water vapor as much as by CO2 levels. You do know that water vapor is the largest atmospheric green house gas, don't you?

Given they can't tax water vapor, IMO they are using CO2 to milk us of even more money.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 12:03 PM, Danderman123 said:

If your point is that national efforts to reduce pollution have been lackluster, I can't disagree. Some countries have made efforts, but overall, results are not so good.

 

And the planet keeps warming.

IMO the only reason that people care is that they have been frightened by people that should know better in the desire to tax the populace even more. Unfortunately many people think Chicken Little is right and the sky is going to fall unless we all drive EVs or ride bicycles.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What I believe is that we don't know everything about nature, as our science is far too primitive. Obviously the sun is the source of heat, but conditions in the atmosphere may be controlled by water vapor as much as by CO2 levels. You do know that water vapor is the largest atmospheric green house gas, don't you?

Given they can't tax water vapor, IMO they are using CO2 to milk us of even more money.

Our science is not that primitive that they don't know about the effects of water vapor:

 

Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 12:17 PM, Danderman123 said:

Al Gore, in his movie about Global Warming, predicted that the planet would get warmer.

 

He was right.

He predicted warming, but the jury is out on whether he was right about CO2 CAUSING temperature rise, or whether increased CO2 FOLLOWED temperature rise.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 12:30 PM, Danderman123 said:

Are there fields of science outside of climate science where you think scientists are wrong? 

 

Do you think the Earth is flat? Do you understand that FlatEarthers likewise think scientists are wrong?

LOL. Scientists have been wrong about things ever since scientists existed.

Of course, some are right, but by no means all.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 12:30 PM, Danderman123 said:

Do you think the Earth is flat?

Of course not, but i never needed a scientist to tell me that. Go up on a hill by the ocean and the horizon is curved, ergo the planet is not flat.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 1:29 PM, Danderman123 said:

Do you believe in witches, too?

 

Do you think politicians should rely on scientists or simply on whatever feeling they have today?

 

Why is it that scientists who receive funding from oil companies are the correct ones, in your opinion, even if they havd been proven wrong?

I believe in Wiccan, and nature.

 

Politicians should listen to both sides of an argument before making decisions, but I fear the lure of new tax sources has blinded them to their obligations.

 

I don't know anything about oil company scientists, but I'd trust them no more than ones from the green lobby.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 1:32 PM, Danderman123 said:

So one poster says politicians aren't doing enough and another that they are doing too much.

 

Guys, work it out between you.

 

It's possible to agree that MMCC is wrong but have different opinions as to why it's wrong.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 1:37 PM, Danderman123 said:

The MMCC was debunked long  ago.

 

I don't want to get into the consensus issue.

 

Instead, you could demonstrate that there is a continued debate by providing recent scientific papers disproving the Global Warming hypothesis. There are hundreds, if not 1000s of papers proving some aspect of Climate Change that are published every year.

 

But, even with oil company money, scientists rarely produce contrary peer reviewed papers, because of the reality thing.

Given everything I put on here is an opinion, unless I do provide a link, I am under no obligation to you to provide any papers regarding anything.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/9/2023 at 1:42 PM, Danderman123 said:

Let me recap the bidding. Please tell me where you disagree:

 

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and traps heat in the lower atmosphere.

 

Until 40 years ago, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been at 280 ppm. Today, CO2 is at 400+ ppm and rising.

 

Additional CO2 causes more warming.

 

Much of this excess CO2 is produced by humans.

 

So, with which of these do you disagree?

Your constant repetition of the same thing over and over and over is tiresome. I have given my opinions and I will not be baited by you.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What I believe is that we don't know everything about nature, as our science is far too primitive. Obviously the sun is the source of heat, but conditions in the atmosphere may be controlled by water vapor as much as by CO2 levels. You do know that water vapor is the largest atmospheric green house gas, don't you?

Given they can't tax water vapor, IMO they are using CO2 to milk us of even more money.

Water vapor indeed is a major greenhouse gas.

 

Water vapor levels in the atmosphere are largely governed by temperature- the higher the temperature,  the more water vapor that can be carried in the atmosphere. This creates a feedback loop which increases temperature even more.

 

So, there is a direct correlation between CO2 levels and Water vapor.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the only reason that people care is that they have been frightened by people that should know better in the desire to tax the populace even more. Unfortunately many people think Chicken Little is right and the sky is going to fall unless we all drive EVs or ride bicycles.

Perhaps some people are concerned because of changes in the climate.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/26/antarctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-lowest-annual-maximum-level-on-record-data-shows

 

Antarctic sea ice shrinks to lowest annual maximum level on record, data shows

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He predicted warming, but the jury is out on whether he was right about CO2 CAUSING temperature rise, or whether increased CO2 FOLLOWED temperature rise.

Can you describe the mechanism by which increased temperature causes increased CO2?

 

The mechanism by which increased CO2 causes increased temperature is well known: it's called the Greenhouse effect, and it's well understood.

 

Increasing CO2 levels in the last 40 years have resulted in increased global temperatures.

 

You should be concerned about CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 

 

https://www.climate.gov/media/14605

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Scientists have been wrong about things ever since scientists existed.

Of course, some are right, but by no means all.

But in this topic, you contend that the vast majority of scientists are wrong about Climate Change, and you are right.

 

I hope you have the self awareness to notice that you use long debunked Oil industry assertions as the basis of your mistaken beliefs.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I believe in Wiccan, and nature.

 

Politicians should listen to both sides of an argument before making decisions, but I fear the lure of new tax sources has blinded them to their obligations.

 

I don't know anything about oil company scientists, but I'd trust them no more than ones from the green lobby.

Your talking points come from oil industry sources. They use the same techniques (if not the same "scientists") that the tobacco lobby used to "prove" that tobacco didn't cause cancer.

 

 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Your constant repetition of the same thing over and over and over is tiresome. I have given my opinions and I will not be baited by you.

Facts are a stubborn thing.

 

They don't go away, even if you ignore them.

[Yellowtail]

On 9/25/2023 at 11:09 PM, placeholder said:

Actually, it should be very easy to figure out why those criteria were selected. It's not incumbent upon me to provide an explanation when one is offered by the article. The explanation in the article about why these criteria were chosen is accessible even to folks, who, unlike you, weren't STEM majors. For you, it should be a snap.

I know why. 

 

Stay the course! 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Perhaps some people are concerned because of changes in the climate.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/26/antarctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-lowest-annual-maximum-level-on-record-data-shows

 

Antarctic sea ice shrinks to lowest annual maximum level on record, data shows

As I already pointed out sea ice varies year to year and one year is nothing to get excited about. Get back to me in 20 years if it continues.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Facts are a stubborn thing.

 

They don't go away, even if you ignore them.

Your facts are not proven to my satisfaction.

I don't ignore them as much as reject them.

[Yellowtail]

23 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Facts are a stubborn thing.

 

They don't go away, even if you ignore them.

This is simply not true, there are plenty facts change all the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

New York City: State of emergency declared over flash flooding

 

Catastrophic floods devastate Greece's farmers

 

European countries smash September temperature records

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/1/2023 at 12:43 AM, Danderman123 said:

New York City: State of emergency declared over flash flooding

 

Catastrophic floods devastate Greece's farmers

 

European countries smash September temperature records

 

The case that we caused it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If it had been there would be no debate about it.

 

Anyway, IMO governments are not doing much about it, whatever the cause.

[Danderman123]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

The case that we caused it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If it had been there would be no debate about it.

 

Anyway, IMO governments are not doing much about it, whatever the cause.

Carbon Dioxide traps heat in the lower atmosphere.

 

CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm over the last 40 years.

 

Global temperature has increased as CO2 levels increase.

 

These are what is known as "facts". Is there some part of this that is difficult to understand? I will type more slowly in the future, if that will help.

[placeholder]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

The case that we caused it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If it had been there would be no debate about it.

 

Anyway, IMO governments are not doing much about it, whatever the cause.

There are still people who deny evolution and who believe that the Earth is 5000 years old. I guess that means that evolution and the age of the earth are still subjects of legitimate debate. At least by your way of reckoning.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Carbon Dioxide traps heat in the lower atmosphere.

 

CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm over the last 40 years.

 

Global temperature has increased as CO2 levels increase.

 

These are what is known as "facts". Is there some part of this that is difficult to understand? I will type more slowly in the future, if that will help.

It's not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is under debate but the reason for it being there. Your side's case has not been proven.

Next.

 

Whatever the cause of climate change, governments are IMO doing sod all to deal with it.