December 2, 2025Dec 2 2 minutes ago, mordothailand said: there are ways to improve plant growth there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%! https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide It's rising anyway. Pushing it more would just agitate the greenies so much that we'd all suffer more.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 2 hours ago, BritManToo said: I think it's getting colder! Possible that you could check the datas. But who cares about facts... Since the 20th century, climate change has caused temperatures in Thailand to increase. Thailand is considered highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Extreme heat and rising sea levels threaten parts of Thailand, including the capital city of Bangkok. Erosion is considered a major problem due to climate change within the country. From 1993 to 2008, the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand has risen 3–5 mm per year, compared to the global average of 1.7 mm per year.[5] Danny Marks, professor and climate consultant for the Rockefeller Foundation, has warned that "Climate change is set to drastically affect the world, and Thailand will likely be one of the most affected countries given its geography, economy, and level of development."
December 2, 2025Dec 2 2 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said: Possible that you could check the datas. But who cares about facts... Since the 20th century, climate change has caused temperatures in Thailand to increase. Thailand is considered highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Extreme heat and rising sea levels threaten parts of Thailand, including the capital city of Bangkok. Erosion is considered a major problem due to climate change within the country. From 1993 to 2008, the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand has risen 3–5 mm per year, compared to the global average of 1.7 mm per year.[5] Danny Marks, professor and climate consultant for the Rockefeller Foundation, has warned that "Climate change is set to drastically affect the world, and Thailand will likely be one of the most affected countries given its geography, economy, and level of development." That pic/chart is rather useless without any legend or scaling but this trend in rising temp is similar in most countries. No reference is offered w.r.t. these sea-level rise figures and I would dispute them. Looks like you've just cut and pasted for convenience,
December 2, 2025Dec 2 1 hour ago, nauseus said: You confuse correlation with identification. Correlation is often used in scientific study , especially in geology. Let me try correlating my boot with your bottom? Let’s establish a correlation of your foot in your mouth: Correlation in science is used as a guide not as factual, and it’s rooted in a key principle of scientific reasoning…correlation does not imply causation. Correlation refers to a statistical relationship between two or more variables. Really not difficult to comprehend now is it…
December 2, 2025Dec 2 1 hour ago, Schoggibueb said: Possible that you could check the datas. But who cares about facts... Since the 20th century, climate change has caused temperatures in Thailand to increase. Thailand is considered highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Extreme heat and rising sea levels threaten parts of Thailand, including the capital city of Bangkok. Erosion is considered a major problem due to climate change within the country. From 1993 to 2008, the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand has risen 3–5 mm per year, compared to the global average of 1.7 mm per year.[5] Danny Marks, professor and climate consultant for the Rockefeller Foundation, has warned that "Climate change is set to drastically affect the world, and Thailand will likely be one of the most affected countries given its geography, economy, and level of development." Who produces 'the data'?
December 2, 2025Dec 2 1 hour ago, novacova said: Let’s establish a correlation of your foot in your mouth: Correlation in science is used as a guide not as factual, and it’s rooted in a key principle of scientific reasoning…correlation does not imply causation. Correlation refers to a statistical relationship between two or more variables. Really not difficult to comprehend now is it… Looks like you've just slapped in the first Google result you could find. Correlation is a process applied to many disciplines. But you knew that, right? I previously mentioned geology, specifically, because that is the science most relevant to this topic. In geology, stratigraphic cross-correlation establishes which sedimentary strata are the same age at distant geographical areas. It is an important part of understanding how the earth formed and what processes governed that formation.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 On 12/1/2025 at 12:31 PM, mordothailand said: maldives drowned back in 2010, scientists say About the same time polar bears went extinct
December 2, 2025Dec 2 8 minutes ago, nauseus said: Looks like you've just slapped in the first Google result you could find. Correlation is a process applied to many disciplines. But you knew that, right? I previously mentioned geology, specifically, because that is the science most relevant to this topic. In geology, stratigraphic cross-correlation establishes which sedimentary strata are the same age at distant geographical areas. It is an important part of understanding how the earth formed and what processes governed that formation. You offered no insight just for the sake of arguing and lost a fundamental basic understanding of what correlations are… 1 hour ago, novacova said: Correlation in science is used as a guide not as factual, and it’s rooted in a key principle of scientific reasoning…correlation does not imply causation. Correlation refers to a statistical relationship between two or more variables. Basic elementary stuff. Now you along with many others gets tossed into the silly bucket.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 4 minutes ago, novacova said: You offered no insight just for the sake of arguing and lost a fundamental basic understanding of what correlations are… Basic elementary stuff. Now you along with many others gets tossed into the silly bucket. Insight about what? I'm not arguing with you.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 30 minutes ago, nauseus said: Insight about what? I'm not arguing with you. yes… 47 minutes ago, nauseus said: Looks like you've just slapped in the first Google result you could find. No. Anyway, give me research that focuses on derivations, proofs, and models without statistical data analysis, as in proving a mathematical theorem and logical deduction, not correlations. Peer reviewed papers use a lot of phrasing like “correlated with” “linked to” and such as a caution to avoid over claiming then picked up by pseudo science quackers or media outlets and “adversed” as fact “peer reviewed” and skewed quackery recycled by these outlets and then we get the pseudo know it all’s that come here to deliver their surface layer expertise on what was fed into them by an !Eye Popping! silly article by folks pushing a narrative.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 Author 5 hours ago, Dan O said: Its called facts, thats why you didnt recognize them grandpa. Time to get with reality. Plenty of info out there but i guess if it doesnt mesh with your trump agenda and spoon feed to you its beyond comprehension Chinese lover too? The burn coal to make those solar panels. My agenda is there is no climate armageddon. How bout you?
December 2, 2025Dec 2 Author Fixing climate change will kill us https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/rivers-oceans/antarcticas-southern-ocean-might-be-gearing-up-for-a-thermal-burp-that-could-last-a-century The end of the world never stops.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 Is climate change real , yes it is . Climate is changing all the time , from much hotter to much colder . Do we contribute to this , yes , way too much people on this planet . The sea used to be 100's of meters higher then now and we have been covered in a icecap of km's thick . Can we stop it ? No , even most profound scientist say that even if we stop everything now , the CO2 in the air will keep on warming the planet for 100y more . Is there a solution , basically yes ( kill 50% of world population , not the most "friendly" solution) , but realistic ,no . We can slow it down , but as long as world population keeps growing , and remember most of them live in poor countries , so they are still developing (aka more CO2) there is no fast solution .
December 2, 2025Dec 2 7 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: You do? Seize, vein, weird, heist, their, feisty, foreign, protein for a start. Ok, you believe that "believe" and spelt "beleive". Either you are another illiterate, or you are just coming on to troll. N G F O T
December 2, 2025Dec 2 6 hours ago, Harrisfan said: Explain how co2 works in an open atmosphere vs closed one. What do you mean by how CO2 works? How it absorbs infrared rays and the re-emits them? Why would that be different in what you call an open atmosphere vs a closed one provided both are exposed to radiant infrared rays? And I'm a bit puzzled by your use of the word atmosphere. Here's a few definitions: Scientific meaning Gas layer: A mass of gases surrounding an astronomical object, held in place by gravity. Earth's atmosphere: The layer of gases (air) surrounding Earth, which provides oxygen, shields from UV radiation, and regulates temperature. It has distinct layers: the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 1 hour ago, sezze said: Is climate change real , yes it is . Climate is changing all the time , from much hotter to much colder . Do we contribute to this , yes , way too much people on this planet . The sea used to be 100's of meters higher then now and we have been covered in a icecap of km's thick . Can we stop it ? No , even most profound scientist say that even if we stop everything now , the CO2 in the air will keep on warming the planet for 100y more . Is there a solution , basically yes ( kill 50% of world population , not the most "friendly" solution) , but realistic ,no . We can slow it down , but as long as world population keeps growing , and remember most of them live in poor countries , so they are still developing (aka more CO2) there is no fast solution . Well not entirely true. There are potential engineering solutions, largely objected to by religious extremists who largely created the mess. John Martin, before his untimely death, proposed a nugget of an idea. Carbon capture technologies are quite efficient at source (eg the factory producing the emission), less effective elsewhere. There is biological capacity in the oceans to process oxidised carbon (carbon dioxide) to reduced carbon (carbohydrate), limited by the available phosphorous and iron (hence Martin's theory, which was related to the proposals of Charlson, Lovelock, Ayers and Watson ("CLAW"). There are potential engineering and biological solutions, but the effectiveness depends on commitments we make. Its a multi-generational effort, 2 generations, but most peopel don't care much about their grandchildren, especially Internet Forcum Incels.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 7 hours ago, mordothailand said: temperature and co2 show an inverse correlation for over 100 million years in a row, but the biggest issue is that we are stuck in a deep ice age and cant seem to exit, and another serious issue is that co2 levels are way below optimal for plant growth https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391 It's good to see the kind of sources you use in your arguments about climate change. Paul Macrae is just some journalist who put out his comments on the internet. I couldn't find anything he has published in a peer-reviewed journal.His claim about CO2 levels not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Clearly, you must have gotten this from some denialist website. Doesn't it bother you at all that denialist claim this kind of bilge as supporting evidence? Here's what AI has to offer about Paul Macrae: Paul Macrae is not a climate scientist; he is a Canadian journalist and author. The specific 2008 claim you are referring to—widely cited in online debates as "MacRae 2008"—was not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Here are the specific details regarding who he is and the source of that claim: 1. Who is Paul Macrae? Profession: He is a former journalist and editor. He worked for over 30 years in media, including roles at the Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, and as an editorial writer and columnist for the Victoria Times Colonist. Background: He holds an MA in English and taught professional writing at the University of Victoria. He does not hold a degree in climatology or a related earth science. Stance: He is a self-described "climate realist" (a term often used by those who reject the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change) and author of the book False Alarm: Global Warming Facts Versus Fears (2010). 2. Where was the 2008 claim published? The "MacRae 2008" citation refers to a specific graph and article published on his personal blog. Source: A blog post on his website, paulmacrae.com (also known as the "False Alarm" blog). Article Title: "We are a long way from global-warming 'oblivion'" Date: June 13, 2008. The Graph: The post features a graph titled "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" (covering the last 600 million years). It overlays two separate datasets—often attributed to C.R. Scotese (temperature) and R.A. Berner (CO2)—to argue that there is no correlation between the two. 3. Context on the Claim The graph Macrae published in that blog post is frequently used in internet discussions to argue that CO2 does not drive temperature
December 2, 2025Dec 2 4 hours ago, BritManToo said: Who produces 'the data'? Graphics and lead scientist: Ed Hawkins, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, UoR. Data: Berkeley Earth & ERA5-Land, NOAA, UK Met Office, MeteoSwiss, DWD, SMHI, UoR & ZAMG ed.hawkins(at)ncas.ac.uk
December 2, 2025Dec 2 8 hours ago, Harrisfan said: Richard S. Lindzen, a professor emeritus of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is known for his contrarian views on climate change, despite being a respected atmospheric physicist with significant contributions to dynamical meteorology, including the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation and explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change, criticizing what he calls "climate alarmism" and arguing that the warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels is not a significant threat. Thomas Kuhn, an historian of science, wrote a book called the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In it he said that a scientific revolution isn't complete until the last of the old guard has died. For over 20 years Lindzen has been making predictions that turned out wrong. He proposed a bet to another scientist that the global mean temperature would drop over the next 20 years. He got that one badly wrong. He also came up with a theory that increased cloud cover would lead to global cooling. In fact, cloud cover has decreased. He did good work once upon a time.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 25 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said: It's good to see the kind of sources you use in your arguments about climate change. all studies of the past say the same thing https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309324713_A_NEW_GLOBAL_TEMPERATURE_CURVE_FOR_THE_PHANEROZOIC
December 2, 2025Dec 2 6 hours ago, mordothailand said: there are ways to improve plant growth there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%! https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-stopped-thriving-when-earth-warmed-56-million-years-ago According to paleo-climatological research, 56 million years ago CO2 levels were between 1200 - 1600 ppm Plants Stopped Thriving When Earth Warmed 56 Million Years Ago Around 56 million years ago, Earth suddenly got much hotter. Over about 5,000 years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere drastically increased and global temperatures shot up by some 6°C. As we show in new research published in Nature Communications, one consequence was that many of the world's plants could no longer thrive. As a result, they soaked up less carbon from the atmosphere, which may have contributed to another interesting thing about this prehistoric planetary heatwave: it lasted more than 100,000 years. https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-stopped-thriving-when-earth-warmed-56-million-years-ago But thanks for sharing with us information from your gardening website.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 There will never be an end to the climate hoax as long as the left wing socialist, globalists make money from it. It's a money maker and the left wing has never passed on an opportunity to milk this hoax for everything it is worth. So these left wing radicals will continue to fly their huge private pollution spewing jets to meetings across the world to discuss ways for the poor folks of the world to stop using fossil fuels. What charlatans they are.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 13 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said: According to paleo-climatological research, 56 million years ago CO2 levels were between 1200 - 1600 ppm Plants Stopped Thriving When Earth Warmed 56 Million Years Ago Around 56 million years ago, Earth suddenly got much hotter. Over about 5,000 years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere drastically increased and global temperatures shot up by some 6°C. As we show in new research published in Nature Communications, one consequence was that many of the world's plants could no longer thrive. As a result, they soaked up less carbon from the atmosphere, which may have contributed to another interesting thing about this prehistoric planetary heatwave: it lasted more than 100,000 years. https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-stopped-thriving-when-earth-warmed-56-million-years-ago But thanks for sharing with us information from your gardening website. oh dear, its called the KT event, not a gas and not temperature, but an asteroid, that snuffed out most life and initiated the slide into current ice age is it AI that cook up your gibberish ? be aware that AI works on the principle of garbage in- garbage out
December 2, 2025Dec 2 1 minute ago, mordothailand said: oh dear, its called the KT event, not a gas and not temperature, but an asteroid, that snuffed out most life and initiated the slide into current ice age Oh dear, the KT event was 65 million years ago. Maybe you got your digits reversed.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 2 minutes ago, mordothailand said: oh dear, its called the KT event, not a gas and not temperature, but an asteroid, that snuffed out most life and initiated the slide into current ice age And while it certainly did cause a period of drastic global cooling, I have never read that it caused the cycle of ice ages that we are now living through.
December 2, 2025Dec 2 5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said: Oh dear, the KT event was 65 million years ago. Maybe you got your digits reversed. " Plants Stopped Thriving When Earth Warmed 56 Million Years Ago Around 56 million years ago," no, they stopped thriving when the asteroid crashed into our planet
December 2, 2025Dec 2 5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said: And while it certainly did cause a period of drastic global cooling, I have never read that it caused the cycle of ice ages that we are now living through. read the graphs of all studies, it has been a never ending slope into colder ever since KT event
December 2, 2025Dec 2 15 minutes ago, mordothailand said: all studies of the past say the same thing https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309324713_A_NEW_GLOBAL_TEMPERATURE_CURVE_FOR_THE_PHANEROZOIC False. Is your information from the same source that led you to cite Paul Macrae? Here first is what AI says. I'll follow that up with links. Paleoclimatological reconstructions of the last 600 million years show a strong positive correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide ( CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 ) levels and global temperature over long geological timescales, as both have fluctuated significantly. When CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 levels were higher, the planet was generally warmer, and when they were lower, it was cooler, a relationship largely driven by CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 's role as a greenhouse gas that traps heat. While this overall correlation is clear, the strength of the relationship varies across different time periods, and on shorter timescales, other factors can influence the relationship. Evidence from paleoclimate records Long-term trends: Reconstructions using data from sources like ice cores and fossilized plankton show that periods of high CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 concentration correspond to warmer periods, while periods of low CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 coincide with colder times. The greenhouse effect: Over millions of years, changes in atmospheric CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 have been a primary driver of Earth's temperature through the greenhouse effect. Varying strength of correlation: The relationship is not always equally strong across all geological eras. For example, some reconstructions show a stronger link in the Paleozoic and Cenozoic eras compared to the Mesozoic (the "age of dinosaurs"). Short-term variations and lags: On shorter timescales, like the glacial cycles of the past few hundred thousand years, the relationship is very strong. However, some data from the end of ice ages show a lag between rising temperature and rising CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 , as warming oceans release stored CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 into the atmosphere, which then further amplifies warming. Key points to remember Overall positive correlation: Higher CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 is consistently associated with higher temperatures and lower CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 with lower temperatures over the long term. Greenhouse gas effect: CO2cap C cap O sub 2 𝐶𝑂2 has a powerful influence on temperature because it is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. Complex relationship: While the long-term trend is clear, the exact relationship can be complex and influenced by other factors, especially on shorter timescales. Here's the result of the latest research Study: Over nearly half a billion years, Earth's temperature has changed drastically, driven by carbon dioxide https://news.arizona.edu/news/study-over-nearly-half-billion-years-earths-temperature-has-changed-drastically-driven-carbon And here's a link to the abstract https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
December 2, 2025Dec 2 7 minutes ago, mordothailand said: " Plants Stopped Thriving When Earth Warmed 56 Million Years Ago Around 56 million years ago," no, they stopped thriving when the asteroid crashed into our planet Because it could only happen once? After that, God closed the door on that possibly happening again?
Create an account or sign in to comment