First time the world has exceeded 1.5C for an entire year

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

I have stated my position on the board any number of times. What is important is that you, and people like you do not go unchallenged when you make stuff up and state it as fact.

 

 

 

... write a simple statement outlining your position? Let me show you how to do it:

 

"Human pollution is causing global temperatures to rise. There are no natural forces causing warming."

 

I understand your goal is to sow dought on the basic premise that humans are causing warming. So, you borrow from other Deniers who never state their position, they only attack the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

You have issued partial statements that leave room for you to wriggle out of support for the Global Warming hypothesis later on.

 

Just state your position...

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

 

... write a simple statement outlining your position? Let me show you how to do it:

 

"Human pollution is causing global temperatures to rise. There are no natural forces causing warming."

 

I understand your goal is to sow dought on the basic premise that humans are causing warming. So, you borrow from other Deniers who never state their position, they only attack the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

You have issued partial statements that leave room for you to wriggle out of support for the Global Warming hypothesis later on.

 

Just state your position...

I am for honest discussion, and I will restate my position after you either support your claims, or admit you made them up. 

 

My position has not changed in at least ten years. 

 

 

 

Edited February 16 by Yellowtail

[Rimmer]

Can we stay on topic please which is about:

 

First time the world has exceeded 1.5C for an entire year

 

Not about who believes in what

[RPCVguy]

On 2/15/2024 at 10:49 AM, placeholder said:

I knew about her but I guess it depends on what is meant by "proven". Since Tyndall's results were definitive I went with him.

There are a number of women who have made discoveries for which they were not given credit. Once the error is known, it seems wrong to perpetuate the error. Among climate scientists, Eunice Foote is now recognized for her research, discovery, and presentation (documented in 1856.) It will take a while for old quotes of the prior citation to be clarified.

Here is a quote, published in 2011:
"Conclusion
In the course of scientific discovery, it can be difficult to assess claims of priority, particularly if research results are not placed in the public domain through formal publication. This is commonplace for presentations at scientific conventions, where often only a title or perhaps an abstract is preserved for posterity. In the case of Eunice Foote's pioneering research on absorption of radiant energy by greenhouse gases, such as CO2 , and the implication that compositional changes in the atmosphere could impact climate changes, it was only through the journalism of David Wells that the originality of her work has been documented. Despite the absence of a formal publication, It is clear that Eunice Foote deserves credit for being an innovator on the topic of CO2 and its potential impact on global climate warming.” https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf.html

The information is accessible to track. Here is another link to it:
https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/ex-libris-universum/foote-note-climate-science-founder

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

There are a number of women who have made discoveries for which they were not given credit. Once the error is known, it seems wrong to perpetuate the error. Among climate scientists, Eunice Foote is now recognized for her research, discovery, and presentation (documented in 1856.) It will take a while for old quotes of the prior citation to be clarified.

Here is a quote, published in 2011:
"Conclusion
In the course of scientific discovery, it can be difficult to assess claims of priority, particularly if research results are not placed in the public domain through formal publication. This is commonplace for presentations at scientific conventions, where often only a title or perhaps an abstract is preserved for posterity. In the case of Eunice Foote's pioneering research on absorption of radiant energy by greenhouse gases, such as CO2 , and the implication that compositional changes in the atmosphere could impact climate changes, it was only through the journalism of David Wells that the originality of her work has been documented. Despite the absence of a formal publication, It is clear that Eunice Foote deserves credit for being an innovator on the topic of CO2 and its potential impact on global climate warming.” https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf.html

The information is accessible to track. Here is another link to it:
https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/ex-libris-universum/foote-note-climate-science-founder

I'm all for giving her credit for her contribution to the issue. But I used Tyndall because I wanted a  rebuttal based on airtight evidence.

[RPCVguy]

2 hours ago, Rimmer said:

Can we stay on topic please which is about:

 

First time the world has exceeded 1.5C for an entire year

 

Not about who believes in what

To be more precise, it is the first time since at least the beginning of the last Ice Age that Earth has been at this temperature. This El Nino cycle is expected to peak early this year - meaning heat release from the oceans soon will not be as significant a contributor to global average air temperatures. Don't expect any great relief though. The albedo reflectivity is worsening as snow and ice covered areas shrink, and the insulation factor of greenhouse gases continues to grow as their concentrations continue to increase.

Here is a set of graphs covering various historical ranges:

 

And here is the current plot of global daily air temperature anomaly. Earth has definitely averaged over 1.5ºC above the baseline agreed to by the IPCC and set as an International Goal to stay below in Paris in 2015

Image source Prof Elliot Jacobson via X, though this site by the University of Maine supplies anomaly data by date - against a more recent/ warmer baseline of 1979-2000 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world

The latest global surface temperature data point on Feb. 8 from ERA5 once again put the planet 2.0°C above the 1850-1900 IPCC baseline, at 2.01°C. The only other times this has happened were Nov. 17, 2023 (2.05°C) and Nov. 18, 2023 (2.06°C).

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

To be more precise, it is the first time since at least the beginning of the last Ice Age that Earth has been at this temperature. This El Nino cycle is expected to peak early this year - meaning heat release from the oceans soon will not be as significant a contributor to global average air temperatures. Don't expect any great relief though. The albedo reflectivity is worsening as snow and ice covered areas shrink, and the insulation factor of greenhouse gases continues to grow as their concentrations continue to increase.

Here is a set of graphs covering various historical ranges:

 

And here is the current plot of global daily air temperature anomaly. Earth has definitely averaged over 1.5ºC above the baseline agreed to by the IPCC and set as an International Goal to stay below in Paris in 2015

Image source Prof Elliot Jacobson via X, though this site by the University of Maine supplies anomaly data by date - against a more recent/ warmer baseline of 1979-2000 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world

The latest global surface temperature data point on Feb. 8 from ERA5 once again put the planet 2.0°C above the 1850-1900 IPCC baseline, at 2.01°C. The only other times this has happened were Nov. 17, 2023 (2.05°C) and Nov. 18, 2023 (2.06°C).

 I read the definitive rebuttal to this.  it is in  the esteemed scientific journal known as The Daily Mail. It states quite conclusively that Mark Zuckerberg has recently  bought more beachfront  property in Hawaii.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792238/mark-zuckerberg-buys-700-acres-hawaii-island-100m.html

[Danderman123]

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I am for honest discussion, and I will restate my position after you either support your claims, or admit you made them up. 

 

My position has not changed in at least ten years. 

 

 

 

maybe you have held your position so long, you can't remember it.

 

Everyone can see your reluctance to state your position.

 

More trolling on your part.

[Danderman123]

The Deniers now admit there is warming. But they claim its from "natural forces".

[johng]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

The Deniers now admit there is warming. But they claim its from "natural forces".

And you deny it can be anything but man made.

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, johng said:

And you deny it can be anything but man made.

Planetary warming has to be caused by something. The warming properties of CO2 are well established.

 

If something else is causing the warming, what is it?

 

You lose 2 points if you say "the sun".

[johng]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Planetary warming has to be caused by something. The warming properties of CO2 are well established

What caused it in the past before man existed ?  if you say the sun you lose your underpants.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, johng said:

What caused it in the past before man existed ?  if you say the sun you lose your underpants.

You answer my question first, and then I will answer yours (if you care to know why the Earth warmed in the past). It is bad form to answer a question with a question.

 

What natural forces do you believe are warming the planet now?

 

[Yellowtail]

38 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

maybe you have held your position so long, you can't remember it.

 

Everyone can see your reluctance to state your position.

 

More trolling on your part.

I am for honest discussion, and I will restate my position after you either support your claims, or admit you made them up.

 

 My position has not changed in at least ten years. 

 

Only a fool would claim: "Human pollution is causing global temperatures to rise. There are no natural forces causing warming."

 

Edited February 16 by Yellowtail

[johng]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

What natural forces do you believe are warming the planet now?

The same that warmed it in the past before mankind existed.

 

Please excuse my bad form  I thought it was ok to ask questions especially of world renowned space entrepreneurs.

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I am for honest discussion, and I will restate my position after you either support your claims, or admit you made them up.

 

 My position has not changed in at least ten years. 

 

Only a fool would claim: "Human pollution is causing global temperatures to rise. There are no natural forces causing warming."

 

So, what's your position on Global Warming?

[Yellowtail]

41 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Deniers now admit there is warming. But they claim its from "natural forces".

Do you have anything that supports your claim, or is it just another of your endless lies? 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

So, what's your position on Global Warming?

I am for honest discussion, and I will restate my position after you either support your claims, or admit you made them up.

 

 My position has not changed in at least ten years. 

 

Only a fool would claim: "Human pollution is causing global temperatures to rise. There are no natural forces causing warming."

Edited February 16 by Yellowtail

[GammaGlobulin]

Nothing new here...move on!

 

Some of us have been watching the Keeling Curve inch up for DECADES....!

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, johng said:

The same that warmed it in the past before mankind existed.

 

Please excuse my bad form  I thought it was ok to ask questions especially of world renowned space entrepreneurs.

Nope.

 

You are confused over the term "warming". Better to use "increased warming".

 

You have no idea why the planet has seen increased warming over the last 100 years.  Your internet masters have not sent you talking points to explain the current warming, so you are helpless.

 

The Sun goes through cycles of increased output, which increase warming on Earth. We are currently in a period of decreased solar output.

 

So, what other natural forces do you believe are causing increased warming?

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your claim, or is it just another of your endless lies? 

 

7 minutes ago, johng said:

The same that warmed it in the past before mankind existed.

 

 

 

[johng]

19 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

So, what other natural forces do you believe are causing increased warming?

Some possibilities... earth orbit variations,moon orbit variations, earth tilt variations,slowdown of rotation, magnetic field variations

etc. etc. etc.

 

Why don't you tell me as you seem to know it all...

 

 

19 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

So, what other natural forces do you believe are causing increased warming?

I have said I believe the warming is caused (mostly) by the same natural causes that have occurred many times in the earths past history before mankind existed.

 

Are mankind's activities increasing the warming  maybe, possibly

are the proposed countermeasures  more detrimental to mankind  than the warming maybe, possibly.

 

Does Co2 increase warming  yes it seems to  was Co2 much higher in the past yes say the "scientist's"  was the earth greener supporting a huge explosion of plant and animal species

was it warmer yes they say   all before humans existed.

 

https://clintel.org/there-is-no-climate-emergency-a-message-to-the-people/

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, johng said:

Some possibilities... earth orbit variations,moon orbit variations, earth tilt variations,slowdown of rotation, magnetic field variations

etc. etc. etc.

 

Why don't you tell me as you seem to know it all

The Earth's orbit and axial tilt are not causing the current warming; in fact, they are in the cooling phase of the current cycle.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

 

Earth's rotation is not causing the current warming, although the warming can change the rate of rotation.

 

The other factors you cite don't cause significant additional warming.

 

What is causing the warming is human produced Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, johng said:

 

 

Does Co2 increase warming  yes it seems to  was Co2 much higher in the past yes say the "scientist's"  was the earth greener supporting a huge explosion of plant and animal species

was it warmer yes they say   all before humans existed.

 

 

A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

 

"it indicates that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide consistently reached today’s human-driven levels was 14 million years ago—much longer ago than some existing assessments indicate. It asserts that long-term climate is highly sensitive to greenhouse gas, with cascading effects that may evolve over many millennia."

 

When your position is that there was more CO2 back in the days of the dinosaurs, you forget that our civilization cannot tolerate such high temperatures. Agriculture would collapse.

 

Edited February 17 by Danderman123

[ozimoron]

 

[ozimoron]

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

Wow, another fat, white billionaire that will never suffer the consequences of his virtue-signaling ideology.

[James105]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

You mean this Andrew Forrest? 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9439463/Mining-magnate-Andrew-Forrest-upgrades-25-year-old-plane-98million-private-jet.html

 

"Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest has parted ways with his trusty old wings and upgraded to the world's most expensive private jet worth $98million."

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

You mean this Andrew Forrest? 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9439463/Mining-magnate-Andrew-Forrest-upgrades-25-year-old-plane-98million-private-jet.html

 

"Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest has parted ways with his trusty old wings and upgraded to the world's most expensive private jet worth $98million."

Yeah, that's nothing to a guy with US$20 billion. 

 

But you need to get you a f'n bicycle. 

[ozimoron]

18 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

You mean this Andrew Forrest? 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9439463/Mining-magnate-Andrew-Forrest-upgrades-25-year-old-plane-98million-private-jet.html

 

"Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest has parted ways with his trusty old wings and upgraded to the world's most expensive private jet worth $98million."

 

Yeah, the one who's really rich. Not shocked that a rag like the daily mail not fit to be used as toilet paper does a hit job on a mining magnate who advocates for climate change action.

 

Edited February 26 by ozimoron