Jump to content

2023 confirmed as world's hottest year on record


Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 1/12/2024 at 2:42 PM, 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.

 

Expand  

 

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. 

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 12:51 AM, 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. 

Expand  

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

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 2:14 AM, 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

Expand  

 

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.

 

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 6:31 AM, 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.

 

Expand  

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

 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 8:39 AM, placeholder said:

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

 

Expand  

 

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. 

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 1:08 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 1:08 PM, 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. 

Expand  

Still waiting for a link to these claims.

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 12:51 AM, 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. 

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 1:16 PM, stevenl said:

Still waiting for a link to these claims.

Expand  

 

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

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 1:25 PM, Danderman123 said:
Expand  

 

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!

 

 

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 2:55 PM, 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!

 

 

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 1/14/2024 at 12:14 AM, 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!

Expand  

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

 

 

Posted
  On 1/13/2024 at 1:23 PM, Danderman123 said:

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

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 1/14/2024 at 12:29 AM, 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.

 

 

Expand  

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!

  • Love It 1
Posted
  On 1/14/2024 at 2:10 AM, 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.

Expand  

 

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.

  • Like 1
  • Heart-broken 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 1/14/2024 at 2:16 AM, 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.

Expand  

 

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?

president-barack-obama-hawaii2.jpg

Posted
  On 1/14/2024 at 2:40 AM, 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?

Expand  

 

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

 

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...