2023 confirmed as world's hottest year on record

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, cmjl said:

You may pontificate all you like but as long as people inhabit this earth and want the latest technology etc nothing will change.The sheer hypocrisy of doom and gloom merchants knows no bounds.

If the technology that provides the power changes, and it is, then something will change. Who are these doom and gloom merchants and why is their alleged hypocrisy significant?

[JonnyF]

14 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The behavior of Bill Gates does not negate the reality of Science.

 

Your position is like saying "X person eats all sorts of junk food, therefore junk food cannot be bad for you. The doctors are all wrong".

 

The science is disputed. The climate has been changing since time began. 

 

The people telling us to watch our carbon footprint are not watching theirs. They can shove it.

 

If you wish to doff your cap to the cult of celebrity and do everything they say while they swan around the globe in private jets then be my guest. 

[Chomper Higgot]

16 hours ago, connda said:

Bravo Sierra.  Ice core samples and paleo-climatology tell a different story. 

Remember:  Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear.  Fearful people are easily manipulated.

The great of change and having to do things differently has many quaking in their boots.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The science is disputed. The climate has been changing since time began. 

 

The people telling us to watch our carbon footprint are not watching theirs. They can shove it.

 

If you wish to doff your cap to the cult of celebrity and do everything they say while they swan around the globe in private jets then be my guest. 

The science is disputed by the same people that dispute every other science that tells them stuff they don’t want to hear.

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The science is disputed. <Snip>

Yes, on social media. It's not disputed by the scientific community.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The science is disputed by the same people that dispute every other science that tells them stuff they don’t want to hear.

 

Oh so this is the first time the climate has changed. Who knew?

[stevenl]

25 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Oh so this is the first time the climate has changed. Who knew?

As I said, on social media.

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As I said, on social media.

 

Yes you're right - the ice age never happened - it's all a conspiracy on social media. Thanks for letting me know...  

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Oh so this is the first time the climate has changed. Who knew?

Who said it was?

 

 

[nauseus]

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I will assume that you slept through science classes in school, because your post contains some very looney assertions.

 

Okay, I will try to educate, I hope you are willing to learn. I will do this step by step, to make it easy.

 

The amount of CO2 in the lower atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million to 400+ ppm over the last 40 years. Do you disagree?

 

The percentage of this increase in CO2 caused by human production is known, due to isotopic analysis (artificially generated CO2 has a different chemical composition than naturally produced CO2). Do you disagree?

 

Furthermore, the amount of CO2 produced by humans is known, and correlates with measurements of artificial CO2 in the atmosphere. This artificial CO2 production correlates with the overall increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

The impact of CO2 on temperature has been known for 200 years. More CO2 = higher atmospheric temperatures. Do you disagree?

 

Therefore, human production of CO2 is increasing atmospheric temperatures.

 

Here's a bonus question for you: why have stratospheric temperatures decreased over the last 40 years?

 

What a patronizing, pompous pile! Grab a couple of scientific articles, cut, paste, edit and then instantly become an "educator" in earth sciences! Nope.

 

  

[nauseus]

21 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

millions of years ago yes. long before god created man. long before man set foot on earth.

 

Geologists and paleontologists have found that, in the last 100 million years, global temperatures have peaked twice. One spike was the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago, about 25 million years before Earth’s last dinosaurs went extinct. Widespread volcanic activity may have boosted atmospheric carbon dioxide. Temperatures were so high that champsosaurs (crocodile-like reptiles) lived as far north as the Canadian Arctic, and warm-temperature forests thrived near the South Pole.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

 

It was a dark and stormy night.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

What a patronizing, pompous pile! Grab a couple of scientific articles, cut, paste, edit and then instantly become an "educator" in earth sciences! Nope.

 

  

I notice you didn't disagree with any of my points.

 

Because you couldn't.

 

It looks like you were the class clown during Science class, because you can't respond coherently on this subject. It's sad, because you seem interested in the topic, but have zero background to contribute anything.

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The science is disputed. The climate has been changing since time began. 

 

The people telling us to watch our carbon footprint are not watching theirs. They can shove it.

 

If you wish to doff your cap to the cult of celebrity and do everything they say while they swan around the globe in private jets then be my guest. 

The science is not disputed - that's just a talking point your internet masters sent you.

 

If I asked you why the planet is warming, you can't give a rational answer. All you have is:

 

The climate is always changing.

 

Because you don't understand that when climate changes, there's a reason for the change - some forcing factor. So, you are unable to provide the forcing factor for the current warming, you don't seem to have a clue about any of this.

[nauseus]

30 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I notice you didn't disagree with any of my points.

 

Because you couldn't.

 

It looks like you were the class clown during Science class, because you can't respond coherently on this subject. It's sad, because you seem interested in the topic, but have zero background to contribute anything.

 

You didn't disagree with any of my points either. 

 

I am interested in the topic and have a far deeper background in it than you ever will.

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

You didn't disagree with any of my points either. 

 

I am interested in the topic and have a far deeper background in it than you ever will.

Great.

 

Why is the Stratosphere cooling?

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Great.

 

Why is the Stratosphere cooling?

 

This broad claim is now only partially valid.

 

Stratospheric temperatures generally decreased from the 1970's to about 2000, coincident with a reduction in the ozone layer. A gradual recovery of same (ozone) has prompted a reversal in that trend. Recently, stratospheric warming has occurred where ozone concentrations have recovered the most, away from the poles and at about 20-25 km above msl.

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

This broad claim is now only partially valid.

 

Stratospheric temperatures generally decreased from the 1970's to about 2000, coincident with a reduction in the ozone layer. A gradual recovery of same (ozone) has prompted a reversal in that trend. Recently, stratospheric warming has occurred where ozone concentrations have recovered the most, away from the poles and at about 20-25 km above msl.

You contradict yourself. As the ozone layer recovers, the Stratosphere should warm. Instead, the stratosphere has been cooling as the ozone layer recovers (except for a brief rise this year).

 

So, why is the Stratosphere cooling despite the recovery of the Ozone layer?

[nauseus]

33 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You contradict yourself. As the ozone layer recovers, the Stratosphere should warm. Instead, the stratosphere has been cooling as the ozone layer recovers (except for a brief rise this year).

 

So, why is the Stratosphere cooling despite the recovery of the Ozone layer?

 

You didn't even read it properly, did you? Try again.

 

Now you've modified your question too!

 

You are a boring time-waster with trollistic leanings. 

 

TGIF

 

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You didn't even read it properly, did you? Try again.

 

Now you've modified your question too!

 

You are a boring time-waster with trollistic leanings. 

 

TGIF

 

Obviously, you don't understand the conversation. I was responding to a new explanation, and my response incorporated the erroneous assertion.

 

If you think you understand any of this:   why is the Stratosphere cooling?

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The science is not disputed - that's just a talking point your internet masters sent you.

 

If I asked you why the planet is warming, you can't give a rational answer. All you have is:

 

The climate is always changing.

 

Because you don't understand that when climate changes, there's a reason for the change - some forcing factor. So, you are unable to provide the forcing factor for the current warming, you don't seem to have a clue about any of this.

 

I don't believe it is warming in the long term. 

 

In terms of the earths existence 2 decades is like a fraction of a second within a century. 

 

It's a wonderful excuse for socialists to create a bigger state and control the people though. A wonderful excuse to tax people in the name of saving the planet. 

 

It's a political tool used by the left to justify big state interference. The fact that it's biggest proponents of climate alarmism refuse to adjust their own lifestyles tells me everything.

 

Feel free to give up your lifestyle and your freedoms though. I won't. The doomsday cult is not for me. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

I don't believe it is warming in the long term. 

 

In terms of the earths existence 2 decades is like a fraction of a second within a century. 

 

It's a wonderful excuse for socialists to create a bigger state and control the people though. A wonderful excuse to tax people in the name of saving the planet. 

 

It's a political tool used by the left to justify big state interference. The fact that it's biggest proponents of climate alarmism refuse to adjust their own lifestyles tells me everything.

 

Feel free to give up your lifestyle and your freedoms though. I won't. The doomsday cult is not for me. 

 

 

The atmosphere has been warming for 40 years.

 

Your argument is an old trope, that current trends are insignificant when compared to geological time. Of course, using the long term approach in any situation is crazy - it's like saying you shouldn't mind a 20 year prison sentence because humans have been around for a million years, in one form or another.

 

Common sense indicates that if the current trend continues, the situation would become dire for many people.

 

The obvious counter to that would be for you to explain why the current trend won't continue, but there you come up empty.

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The science is disputed. The climate has been changing since time began. 

 

The people telling us to watch our carbon footprint are not watching theirs. They can shove it.

 

If you wish to doff your cap to the cult of celebrity and do everything they say while they swan around the globe in private jets then be my guest. 

"The science is disputed."

Basically by a few elderly climatologists whose predictions repeatedly have proven to be wrong. Thomas Kuhn once noted that a scientific revolution isn't fully done until all the old scientists opposed to it have passed way.

 

Clearly, you are obsessed with celebrities. Why you pay attention to them is beyond me. It's just sad.

As for me, the information I used to inform myself ultimately comes from research done by climatologists. 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

I don't believe it is warming in the long term. 

 

In terms of the earths existence 2 decades is like a fraction of a second within a century. 

 

It's a wonderful excuse for socialists to create a bigger state and control the people though. A wonderful excuse to tax people in the name of saving the planet. 

 

It's a political tool used by the left to justify big state interference. The fact that it's biggest proponents of climate alarmism refuse to adjust their own lifestyles tells me everything.

 

Feel free to give up your lifestyle and your freedoms though. I won't. The doomsday cult is not for me. 

 

 

It's a good thing you don't invoke conspiracy theories to fault the science...oh wait a minute...

[ozimoron]

I have never seen a credible climate scientist dispute the consensus on climate change where that person wasn't proven to be paid by fossil fuel companies.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You didn't even read it properly, did you? Try again.

 

Now you've modified your question too!

 

You are a boring time-waster with trollistic leanings. 

 

TGIF

 

As usual, you don't get it. It may be true that the cooling in the areas where ozone destroying gases tended to congregate have gotten a bit warmer recently because of the decline in the amount of those gases. But the stratosphere as a whole continues to get cooler:

 

"Previous research projected that as carbon dioxide trapped heat in the troposphere, which is the lowest level of the atmosphere, the stratosphere above it would cool down. Recent improvements in satellite data and computer model simulations have enabled researchers to search for that predicted cooling pattern in the middle and upper stratosphere, and to see how it affects efforts to identify human fingerprints on climate.

 

The new research shows that from 1986 to 2022, the human-produced greenhouse gases that caused warming of the Earth’s surface and the troposphere also led to a mean cooling of about 1.8 to 2.2 degrees Celsius in the middle and upper stratosphere globally."

 https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-fingerprinting#:~:text=The new research shows that,middle and upper stratosphere globally.

 

So if anyone is a boring time waster with trollistic leanings, it's someone who calls others that while exemplifying such a personage himself.

 

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I have never seen a credible climate scientist dispute the consensus on climate change where that person wasn't proven to be paid by fossil fuel companies.

Even the fossil fuel companies themselves know their products are contributing to climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shell-grappled-with-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/ and there's many more.

[placeholder]

On 1/11/2024 at 1:43 PM, Robert Paulson said:

It’s so hot and the glaciers are obviously melting at unprecedented rates and yet in hua hin the high tide comes to the exact same spot as it always did

Thanks for the scientific report. I guess you had this published in The Journal of Because I Say So.

[placeholder]

On 1/11/2024 at 4:34 PM, connda said:

Bravo Sierra.  Ice core samples and paleo-climatology tell a different story. 

Remember:  Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear.  Fearful people are easily manipulated.

Maybe you should try to remember LInks Links Links Links Links. Which should lead to something called Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence that is produced by something called Scientific Research Scientific Research Scientific Research Scientific Research Scientific Research

[Danderman123]

On 1/11/2024 at 6:34 AM, connda said:

Bravo Sierra.  Ice core samples and paleo-climatology tell a different story. 

Remember:  Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear.  Fearful people are easily manipulated.

Ice core samples indicate that CO2 levels are currently higher than at any point in the last million years.

[Danderman123]

Higher CO2 concentrations in the lower atmosphere cause higher atmospheric temperatures in the Troposphere.

 

Anyone disagree?