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

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

You don't seem to have a position on Global Warming, other than trolling.

 

Any reasonable person would understand that a short term spike in global temperature does not mean that we are 10 years away from oblivion. Next year, temperatures may decline. It's the long term warming trend that is the problem.

 

Your trolling just makes you look like you are compensating for having failed Science class in high school.

That was my point, that a one year spike means nothing. 

 

If the temperature drops 1.53 degrees next year, there will be no one claiming the Earth is cooling. 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

That was my point, that a one year spike means nothing. 

 

If the temperature drops 1.53 degrees next year, there will be no one claiming the Earth is cooling. 

You are correct, it's the trend that matters:

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

 

[Danderman123]

As a historical note, the Deniers used to use 1998 as their baseline, because there was a one time spike in temperature that year. So the more dishonest Deniers used to show a chart like this, and claim there was no warming.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are correct, it's the trend that matters:

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

 

Why does the chart not go back a thousand years?

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

As a historical note, the Deniers used to use 1998 as their baseline, because there was a one time spike in temperature that year. So the more dishonest Deniers used to show a chart like this, and claim there was no warming.

 

 

Who is claiming there is no warming? 

[Danderman123]

I decided to take a look at Denier prediction from Back in the Day:

 

A Friendly Bet on Global Warming

 

This Denier wanted to make a 10    year bet on future warming with Al Gore. His position was that there would be no warming. You can see what happened below, with the green line being the Denier's prediction vs the IPCC projection in red:

 

 

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why does the chart not go back a thousand years?

Because the relevant period is after the Industrial Revolution saw the production of significant CO2 by humans, particularly in the last 50 years or so.

 

We know there have been earlier periods of warming, caused by known increases in natural forces. But there are no known increases in natural forces at the present time.

 

So, tracking the impact of human pollution is important in  predicting further warming.

 

If there were known increases in natural forcing factors, their impact would be relevant. It's kind of like tracking the past impact of incoming asteroids on climate: not relevant unless we detect a new inconing asteroid.

[Danderman123]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Who is claiming there is no warming? 

Plenty of Deniers here. They pop up from time to time.

 

When they do, I will let you correct them. I am sure you will duly inform them that the predicted warming is here.

 

 

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Who is claiming there is no warming? 

10 Frequently Heard Claims Made by Climate Deniers and Whether They’re True or Not

 

A YouGov poll in 2019 showed that 17 percent of Americans believed that “the idea of man-made global warming is a hoax that was invented to deceive people.”

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

10 Frequently Heard Claims Made by Climate Deniers and Whether They’re True or Not

 

A YouGov poll in 2019 showed that 17 percent of Americans believed that “the idea of man-made global warming is a hoax that was invented to deceive people.”

So, you did not understand the question, or you are just being deceitful. 

 

Whether or not people believe warming is manmade is unrelated to whether or not they believe there is warming.

 

There are also people that believe in AGW, but see the left's push for its idiotic energy programs as ridiculous at best, and a power grab at worst. 

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That was my point, that a one year spike means nothing. 

 

If the temperature drops 1.53 degrees next year, there will be no one claiming the Earth is cooling. 

Correct.

 

It's the long term trend that matters:

 

https://theconversation.com/global-temperature-rises-in-steps-heres-why-we-can-expect-a-steep-climb-this-year-and-next-209385

 

 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you did not understand the question, or you are just being deceitful. 

 

Whether or not people believe warming is manmade is unrelated to whether or not they believe there is warming.

 

There are also people that believe in AGW, but see the left's push for its idiotic energy programs as ridiculous at best, and a power grab at worst. 

 

 

 

It's like IQ, 50% of people have a less than average IQ. So, there is a boatload of people who flunked Science and don't believe that there is any warming.

 

And then another group who acknowledge the warming but think it's natural. Maybe those are people who got a "D" in Science.

 

 

[quake]

My mate,  still thinks it was a little bit chilly in the pub beer garden the other week.

Ay up, Barnsley uk 2024.

 

 

 

[placeholder]

17 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I decided to take a look at Denier prediction from Back in the Day:

 

A Friendly Bet on Global Warming

 

This Denier wanted to make a 10    year bet on future warming with Al Gore. His position was that there would be no warming. You can see what happened below, with the green line being the Denier's prediction vs the IPCC projection in red:

 

 

That was Richard Lindzer. One of the leading denialists. In general, their predictions have not aged well. That anomalously hot year of 1998, which was a year with a powerful El Nino, the hottest then on record, now doesn't even make the top 10. Not even as hot as some years with no El Nino.

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Correct.

 

It's the long term trend that matters:

 

https://theconversation.com/global-temperature-rises-in-steps-heres-why-we-can-expect-a-steep-climb-this-year-and-next-209385

 

 

 

Yet the fluctuations over a hundred years ago do not matter. Why is that? 

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

It's like IQ, 50% of people have a less than average IQ. So, there is a boatload of people who flunked Science and don't believe that there is any warming.

 

And then another group who acknowledge the warming but think it's natural. Maybe those are people who got a "D" in Science.

 

 

You still have not supported your claim about so many people that do not believe there is no warming. 

 

I suspect most college graduates in the US do not even have to pass a science class. 

 

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Yet the fluctuations over a hundred years ago do not matter. Why is that? 

 

There has been prior warming on Earth, caused by known natural forces.

 

But the overall warming trend in the last 100 years, and is not caused by natural forces - CO2 is warming the planet.

 

You can troll all you want, but you can't refute the facts.

Edited February 12 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You still have not supported your claim about so many people that do not believe there is no warming. 

 

I suspect most college graduates in the US do not even have to pass a science class. 

 

Another time waster from you.

 

Does it matter the flavor of ignorance from Global Warming Deniers?

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-2-climate-change-and-energy-issues/

Edited February 12 by Danderman123

[rickudon]

Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Earth would be a snowball. Also, the sun was much cooler a billion years ago, so it needed a LOT of greenhouse gases to keep water liquid at the surface. Fortunately there was a lot. Once photosynthesis evolved, there was a problem - it reduced CO2 levels - far enough to cause earth to freeze over at least twice. Fortunately this decreased photosynthesis, allowing other natural processes to increase CO2 levels again (e.g. CO2 in volcanic gases). Ever since this is a fine balancing act - sometimes higher, sometimes lower, depending on MANY factors.

 

How critical this balance is cannot be underestimated. There are some interesting hypotheses around. What ended the Medieval warm period? Possibly the Black death - so many people died that a lot of farmland was abandoned, resulting in more trees. Then the new world was discovered - and the impact of colonisation bringing new diseases decimated the New world's native population - resulting in more trees again, keeping the temperature on a downward curve.

 

Industrialisation, land clearance from the 19th century onwards has reversed this by releasing more CO2, hence more warming. The trees may have been a marginal factor, out of many, but perhaps enough to tip the balance.

 

Warming has accelerated in the 21st Century. IPCC predictions have been called alarmist by skeptics, but in fact are proving to be far to conservative. I predicted that the holy grail of 1.5 degrees Centigrade would be breached this decade, not the 2030's, and i was right.

 

The rapid growth of forest fires is just accelerating this change, and brings a problem - whats the point of planting trees if they just end up burning in fires? We are reaching a tipping point when many species of animals and plants will no longer thrive, due to heat stress and environmental degradation, possibly going extinct. The impact of this is hard to predict, but is unlikely to be good.

[Danderman123]

One of the ramifications of climate change is rainfall changes. For example, the area of Russia northeast of Kazakhstan is experiencing diminished rainfall, even as the country as a whole is warming. The area facing lower rainfall previously was an important agricultural production source.

[RPCVguy]

On 2/9/2024 at 10:45 PM, placeholder said:

What makes the denialism of this fact remarkable is that the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was first proven by the Great Irish Physicist John Tindall in the 19th century. 

Small correction here. The work was done and first presented 2 years before John Tyndall in 1858 as is usually credited. It took over a century for the proper credit to be given.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/02/the-woman-who-identified-the-greenhouse-effect-years-before-tyndall/

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

Small correction here. The work was done and first presented 2 years before John Tyndall in 1858 as is usually credited. It took over a century for the proper credit to be given.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/02/the-woman-who-identified-the-greenhouse-effect-years-before-tyndall/

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.

[rabas]

4 hours ago, 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.

 

You need to prove that prove has multiple meanings.  Did you read her paper?  She both proved it by elegantly simple experiment and clearly saw the atmosphere/climate implications. She also discovered H₂O moisture had a large effect and that condensation would be difficult to treat quantitatively, just like today's climate folks who start hand-waving at the mention of water. She got the whole study in a nutshell. 

 

"She was the first scientist to conclude that certain gases warmed when exposed to sunlight, and that rising carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels would change atmospheric temperature and could affect climate, a phenomenon now referred to as the Greenhouse effect."  WIKI

 

Tyndall worked to advance and prove parts of the model, particularity how CO₂ absorbs bands of IR, but full understanding only came after the discovery of quantum physics. 

[placeholder]

54 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

You need to prove that prove has multiple meanings.  Did you read her paper?  She both proved it by elegantly simple experiment and clearly saw the atmosphere/climate implications. She also discovered H₂O moisture had a large effect and that condensation would be difficult to treat quantitatively, just like today's climate folks who start hand-waving at the mention of water. She got the whole study in a nutshell. 

 

"She was the first scientist to conclude that certain gases warmed when exposed to sunlight, and that rising carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels would change atmospheric temperature and could affect climate, a phenomenon now referred to as the Greenhouse effect."  WIKI

 

Tyndall worked to advance and prove parts of the model, particularity how CO₂ absorbs bands of IR, but full understanding only came after the discovery of quantum physics. 

"Foote’s results were not definitive, Hayhoe says, with too many uncontrolled factors in the experiment."

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/02/the-woman-who-identified-the-greenhouse-effect-years-before-tyndall/

 

[Danderman123]

and yet there are posters here who don't believe that CO2 impacts temperature.

 

Right, @Yellowtail

Edited February 15 by Danderman123

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

and yet there are posters here who don't believe that CO2 impacts temperature.

 

Right, @Yellowtail

I do not know of anyone that has made that claim, do you? 

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not know of anyone that has made that claim, do you? 

 

 

and yet there are posters who claim that humans are not causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280-400+ ppm.

[Yellowtail]

50 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

and yet there are posters who claim that humans are not causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280-400+ ppm.

So, can we assume that since you've changed the subject, that you are not able to support your claim that there are posters here who don't believe that CO2 impacts temperature?

 

I did not think you could. 

.

 

[Danderman123]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, can we assume that since you've changed the subject, that you are not able to support your claim that there are posters here who don't believe that CO2 impacts temperature?

 

I did not think you could. 

.

 

Not important. You really believe that no poster here has never claimed that CO2 impacts temperature.  There have been all sorts of nutballs posting on this forum about Global Warming. 

 

What is important is that you simply state your position on human caused global warming.

[Yellowtail]

24 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Not important.

I know, you care nothing about the truth. 

24 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You really believe that no poster here has never claimed that CO2 impacts temperature.

You are the one making claims you can't support, not me. 

24 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

There have been all sorts of nutballs posting on this forum about Global Warming. 

Including you repeatedly making unsupported claims. 

24 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

What is important is that you simply state your position on human caused global warming.

 

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.