2023 confirmed as world's hottest year on record

[still kicking]

Feel sorry for people in Marbel Bar Australia 

[metisdead]

A post with unattributed content contravening our Community Standards has been removed, please provide a link to the source of information when posting.

[nauseus]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

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.

 

 

As usual, you interfere without "getting" the history of the arguments of others. If you go back and carefully read what I have said, you will see that I am not disputing the overall cooling in the stratosphere. 

[BritManToo]

It didn't feel any hotter to me!

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It didn't feel any hotter to me!

 

It did for everone else.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

As usual, you interfere without "getting" the history of the arguments of others. If you go back and carefully read what I have said, you will see that I am not disputing the overall cooling in the stratosphere. 

Did you read what you wrote? Here it is again for your delectation:

 

"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"

 

The trend has not reversed. Most likely, you got this info from some denialist website. Can't be sure, since you managed not to include a link to the source

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Did you read what you wrote? Here it is again for your delectation:

 

"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"

 

The trend has not reversed. Most likely, you got this info from some denialist website. Can't be sure, since you managed not to include a link to the source

 

Saying that a trend reversal has been prompted does not mean that the process is complete.

 

You forever twist words to suit yourself. Go away.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Saying that a trend reversal has been prompted does not mean that the process is complete.

 

You forever twist words to suit yourself. Go away.

 

Nonsense. The stratosphere is still getting colder. There has been no reversal of the trend.

 

[Danderman123]

19 hours ago, still kicking said:

Feel sorry for people in Marbel Bar Australia 

It's cold in the US, so Global Warming isn't real.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It's cold in the US, so Global Warming isn't real.

 

The sea isn't rising at Pattaya beach so it isn't real.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense. The stratosphere is still getting colder. There has been no reversal of the trend.

 

 

Nonsense back at ya. The O3 layer has greatly recovered since 2000, so that driver of stratospheric cooling has weakened correspondingly. That is what I was talking about. 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Nonsense back at ya. The O3 layer has greatly recovered since 2000, so that driver of stratospheric cooling has weakened correspondingly. That is what I was talking about. 

That's what you're talking about now. Now what you said back when. And this in no way constitutes a reversal. Just a slowing.

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Nonsense back at ya. The O3 layer has greatly recovered since 2000, so that driver of stratospheric cooling has weakened correspondingly. That is what I was talking about. 

Still waiting for a link to these claims.

[Danderman123]

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

As usual, you interfere without "getting" the history of the arguments of others. If you go back and carefully read what I have said, you will see that I am not disputing the overall cooling in the stratosphere. 

So, if the ozone layer is no longer diminishing, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

The sea isn't rising at Pattaya beach so it isn't real.

The data from the tidal gauge near the study area reveals that the sea level has risen approximately 14.2 mm per year from 1992 to 2006 at Pattaya beach

[nauseus]

40 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Still waiting for a link to these claims.

 

The response to which you jumped on was to someone else - he didn't provide any links so I couldn't be bothered either. 

[ozimoron]

33 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The data from the tidal gauge near the study area reveals that the sea level has risen approximately 14.2 mm per year from 1992 to 2006 at Pattaya beach

 

I was being sarcastic. Few people would notice that increase without instruments.

[nauseus]

34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The data from the tidal gauge near the study area reveals that the sea level has risen approximately 14.2 mm per year from 1992 to 2006 at Pattaya beach

 

Strange. 

 

No reference or name for this tidal station near to Pattaya (wherever it is) and any relevant source data for it. Also no mention of several relatively recent but significant Pattaya beach remedial works due local storms overwhelming the drainage system from time-to-time, with the consequent flood waters running as rivers on to the beach to erode and ruin it. The reason for any shoreline "retreat" is probably mainly because there is less material (sand) due to erosion, despite all of the replacement sand brought in. 

 

This quoted Pattaya sea-level rise of 14.2mm/y is a lot, and double that quoted down south, so I see it as questionable. This rate is also more than double the average value (6.5mm/y) for Thailand that the same authors cite in a "related" paper linked below. In it they do mention the beach "nurturing" (bringing in a bunch of sand/partial replacement for Pattaya) but this paper was submitted 2 years later. 

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/6/588

 

Even stranger!

 

 

[Danderman123]

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Strange. 

 

No reference or name for this tidal station near to Pattaya (wherever it is) and any relevant source data for it. Also no mention of several relatively recent but significant Pattaya beach remedial works due local storms overwhelming the drainage system from time-to-time, with the consequent flood waters running as rivers on to the beach to erode and ruin it. The reason for any shoreline "retreat" is probably mainly because there is less material (sand) due to erosion, despite all of the replacement sand brought in. 

 

This quoted Pattaya sea-level rise of 14.2mm/y is a lot, and double that quoted down south, so I see it as questionable. This rate is also more than double the average value (6.5mm/y) for Thailand that the same authors cite in a "related" paper linked below. In it they do mention the beach "nurturing" (bringing in a bunch of sand/partial replacement for Pattaya) but this paper was submitted 2 years later. 

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/6/588

 

Even stranger!

 

 

Rising sea levels forcing residents in Thailand’s low-lying areas to adapt – or leave

 

Built on the Chao Phraya River delta in Thailand’s central plain, Bangkok is a low-lying city with an average elevation of 1.5 metres above sea level. Sea level rise alone, expected to reach 1 to 2 metres, will submerge most of the city by the end of the century.

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Rising sea levels forcing residents in Thailand’s low-lying areas to adapt – or leave

 

Built on the Chao Phraya River delta in Thailand’s central plain, Bangkok is a low-lying city with an average elevation of 1.5 metres above sea level. Sea level rise alone, expected to reach 1 to 2 metres, will submerge most of the city by the end of the century.

 

Is this supposed to be news?

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Is this supposed to be news?

What's news is that sea levels are rising, due to human produced CO2. Despite your efforts to confuse people.

[BritManToo]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

What's news is that sea levels are rising, due to human produced CO2. Despite your efforts to confuse people.

Sea level looks to be the same as it was 60 years back to me.

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Sea level looks to be the same as it was 60 years back to me.

That would be humorous, unless your home is now underwater.

[BritManToo]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

That would be humorous, unless your home is now underwater.

The whole point being my childhood home on Shoreham beach isn't underwater. And if there were any sea level rises, it would be!

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The whole point being my childhood home on Shoreham beach isn't underwater. And if there were any sea level rises, it would be!

You posted that a few months ago, I responded with official figures of sea level rise, and you went away for a while.

 

 

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

So, if the ozone layer is no longer diminishing, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

There's the upper stratosphere and the lower stratosphere. The temperature of the upper stratosphere is naturally warmer than the temperature of the lower stratosphere thanks to the relatively high concentrations of ozone in the upper stratosphere. Hydrofluorocarbons destroyed lots of ozone so the upper stratosphere's cooling was accelerated. Now that the level of hydrofluorocarbons in the atmosphere is decreasing, the temperature in the upper stratosphere is increasing again. However, while ozone may heat the upper stratosphere, it has no effect on the lower stratosphere. So the reduction in ozone levels doesn't explain why the lower stratosphere is cooling.

Here's a link:

https://archive.ph/71all

https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere/Stratosphere-and-mesosphere

 

Nauseus' claim

"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."

 

is false. Average overall stratospheric temperature is still declining. There has been no reversal in overall stratospheric temperature. And the fact that the upper stratosphere has been getting warmer is utterly irrelevant to the reason why the lower stratosphere is getting cooler. And the reason for that is that greenhouse gases in the troposphere are slowing the rise of heat into the stratosphere.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

You posted that a few months ago, I responded with official figures of sea level rise, and you went away for a while.

 

 

And you keep posting the same nonsense about sea level rises.

There are none, and if there were the rich of the world wouldn't still be buying seafront property, and the banks wouldn't still provide 30 year mortgages on them. Not to mention the huge current investments in building resorts on Pacific islands that were predicted to be underwater by now.

 

You need to use a little common sense when making your alarmist posts, else be laughed at.

Official figures are clearly fake!

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

And you keep posting the same nonsense about sea level rises.

There are none, and if there were the rich of the world wouldn't still be buying seafront property, and the banks wouldn't still provide 30 year mortgages on them. Not to mention the huge current investments in building resorts on Pacific islands that were predicted to be underwater by now.

 

You need to use a little common sense when making your alarmist posts, else be laughed at.

 

That little myth has been cleaned up for you previously as well. Obama's beachfront property is 13 metres above sea level. My mother does this too, every now and again she'll repeat the same falsehood that was debunked previously.

[BritManToo]

35 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That little myth has been cleaned up for you previously as well. Obama's beachfront property is 13 metres above sea level. My mother does this too, every now and again she'll repeat the same falsehood that was debunked previously.

 

Doesn't look like 13m above the water to me ............. more like 0.5m at it's highest point.

How can you live with yourself, telling these silly lies all the time?

Are you confusing his Martha Vinyard property with his Honolulu property?

[ozimoron]

25 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

 

Doesn't look like 13m above the water to me ............. more like 0.5m at it's highest point.

How can you live with yourself, telling these silly lies all the time?

 

Careful, sunshine. Stop the "how can you live with yourself BS" Stop reading right wing trash like whatsupwiththat.

 

Towards the end of the Obama presidency, the house they had rented was put on the market,

 

 The 6,967-square-foot main house sits 120 feet above sea level and features six bedrooms and seven baths including a private master suite with its own den.

 

https://www.upscalelivingmag.com/real-estate/obama-vacation-rental-sells-15-million/

 

The Obama house isn’t on the ocean, it is on the Edgartown Great Pond, a salt-water pond protected from the actual ocean by a strip of beach that occasionally is breached when high tide coincides with a low pressure storm system. The pond (indeed, all of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard) were formed as glaciers retreated 10,000+ years ago. The land around the pond is gently sloping and none of the houses on the pond are anywhere near extreme high tide.

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Obamas-buy-a-large-house-on-Martha-s-Vineyard-when-it-is-right-on-the-ocean-If-they-believe-the-oceans-are-rising-shouldn-t-they-buy-much-further-inland-How-serious-is-the-threat-of-rising-sea-levels