Ocean temperature measurements can be deceptive due to historical inconsistencies and methodological biases. Early records relied on bucket samples, where temperature varied based on bucket material (wood vs. canvas) and exposure to sunlight or evaporation, introducing a "cold error" that systematically underreported sea surface temperatures (SST). A significant warming jump in 1945 was later traced to a shift in sampling from buckets to engine room intakes, which warmed the water. In the 20th century, data truncation—such as Japanese naval records losing decimal precision—created artificial cooling trends in the Pacific, while German ship data skewed North Atlantic warming.

18 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

I feel sorry for you poor lefties. Rich lefties use massive co2 lol

They laugh at you fools

According to Bill Maher, it's carbon monoxide 🤣

Nothing but a climate scam, wish they would stop with this crap it's getting annoying

https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

we are still stuck in the deepest ice age since before complex life evolved, (Quaternary ice age) and almost all lives lost are due to cold, not warmth

https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future

Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.

The myth is that climate was lovely during little ice age 1300-1850.

Reality is that crops would routinely freeze over before they had time to ripen, and famine was the norm, and europeans migrated to americas in a last attempt to stave off starvation

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Fact 1. The average sea level rise on the east coast of America since 1920 has been 10-12 inches. It's accelerating.

Fact 2. The Greenland ice cap has lost 250 billion tonnes of ice per year over the last decade.

Fact 3. CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution have increased by 53%. Prior to that, the CO2 level was stable for 10,000 years.

Fact 4. Events of mass coral bleaching are increasing in frequency, intensity and geographic extent.

Fact 5. Coral bleaching occurs because sea temperatures are rising.

Fact 6.. No-one can beat the laws of thermodynamics, not even AI.

Perhaps you have a problem connecting the dots.

Fact, It takes time to change it can take Thousands of years , So what you are saying doesn't mean Anything.

On 2/16/2026 at 7:35 AM, Harrisfan said:

Thousands of scientists are skeptics.

And millions of scientists aren’t!

1 minute ago, Red Forever said:

And millions of scientists aren’t!

Name 100 scientists

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Be of good cheer, the world's most powerful political leader is a climate denier.

When he said he would take $1 billion from the oil industry in exchange for deregulation of environmental laws, he wasn't kidding.

Nobody pays me for the facts and opinions I post.

That's because they're worthless!

My oh my. This subject always gets the Gammon sizzling.

Is it purely coincidental that the deniers all seem to have bigoted far right views on all AN topics on other pages?

1 minute ago, Red Forever said:

My oh my. This subject always gets the Gammon sizzling.

Is it purely coincidental that the deniers all seem to have bigoted far right views on all AN topics on other pages?

How many climate reports have you read? I usually find you nuts have read zero lol

1 hour ago, ericbj said:

This is all very interesting. However certain questions must be raised.

Analyses of core samples of polar ice show that there are found to be much higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during certain periods of Ice Age. Were these samples wrongly dated? (it's possible)

Atmospheric CO2 during the period preceding the Industrial Revolution is considered, by some, to have been approaching the lower limit for supporting plant growth, i.e. all higher forms of life, including carnivores.

Current levels are apparently still below sub-optimal. The reason why some greenhouse-growers purchase cylinders of compressed CO2 to enrich the air in their greenhouses.

The "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is minor compared to that of methane now bubbling up in huge volume from the bottom of the warming Arctic Ocean (which puts to shame the effect of cow-farts).

Annual average temperature measurements at world-wide weather stations are claimed by some to be deceptive because such facilities, commonly established close to major cities, are now often surrounded by urban sprawl; where surface temperatures tend to be higher.

Temperatures of the upper atmosphere, recorded by NASA, are said to show cooling over the past quarter of a century.

Astrophysicists tell us that the Sun is entering a cooling cycle likely to last several decades. The Sun is our principal source of warmth and light, essential for life.

We know that pack-ice over the Arctic Ocean is melting fast. If global temperatures are not rising, how can this be so?

I am not a climatologist. But it is well known that there is an accelerating drop in the Earth's magnetic field which is disrupting the ionosphere and in so doing exposing us to particulate radiation from the Sun (potentially opening a pandora's box of problems).

The Jet Stream is changing, and with it so are the ocean currents. Winds are strengthening, although not much as yet. Earthquakes and volcanic activity are said to be increasing. The oceans are warming. These changes have been linked to the weakening of our ionosphere, our protective envelope.

Antarctica is a continent, not an ocean as in the Arctic. Is the kilometres-thick inland ice there (less affected by ocean temperatures) melting the same way as at the opposite pole?

We must be careful not to imitate the supposed bahaviour of lemmings.

No, Antarctica is isolated due to currents, and panama isnt going to drown anytime soon. its for all intents and purposes isolated from the rest of the world and sees no changes in climate. it exerts no influence and is not influenced by the rest of the world. its irrelevant

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

That's because they're worthless!

He told me to buy silver 2 days before it crashed lol

On 2/16/2026 at 3:20 AM, BritManToo said:

https://www.johnlocke.org/climate-alarmists-like-luxury-beachfront-property/

Apparently climate alarmists like beachfront properties.

https://www.propublica.org/article/obama-and-the-beach-house-loopholes

Obama's beach house, doesn't look 10m above water to me as @Patong2021 claimed.

Interesting. It is hardwired into my brain that the idea chief climate alarmist Obama bought 2 sea level mansions and estates was a "conspiracy theory", yet here we are.

I find people with the ability to ban inconvenient facts just because i they are unfavorable to political narratives they are pushing a deeply disturbing aspect of forums/social media.

5 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Interesting. It is hardwired into my brain that the idea chief climate alarmist Obama bought 2 sea level mansions and estates was a "conspiracy theory", yet here we are.

I find people with the ability to ban inconvenient facts just because i they are unfavorable to political narratives they are pushing a deeply disturbing aspect of forums/social media.

the Endangerment Finding defied science.

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/climate-and-energy-experts-praise-trumps-endangerment-finding-repeal

In my most recent book, I say as far as our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere, we're already "over the cliff." We can only slow it down, but cannot stop or reverse it. 😢

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

In my most recent book, I say as far as our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere, we're already "over the cliff." We can only slow it down, but cannot stop or reverse it. 😢

But you are not a scientist.

5 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

But you are not a scientist.

But most scientists focus only on technological processes, not on human proclivities.

My book identifies three causes of our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere:
1. Technology (all technology pollutes);
2. Overpopulation (humans);
3. Human Hubris (the belief that we (humans) are the most important thing in the universe, and everything else can be used and destroyed at our whim).

Just now, WDSmart said:

But most scientists focus only on technological processes, not on human proclivities.

My book identifies three causes of our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere:
1. Technology (all technology pollutes);
2. Overpopulation (humans);
3. Human Hubris (the belief that we (humans) are the most important thing in the universe, and everything else can be used and destroyed at our whim).

Just 1 man's opinion.

On 2/16/2026 at 7:37 AM, Harrisfan said:

Give up all products made with fossil fuels then. That makes you naked living in a cave without fire.

That's what the climate activist nutters would like us to be doing, looking the state of some of them, I think many already are , certainly hot and cold running water and soap are not priorities

33 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

But most scientists focus only on technological processes, not on human proclivities.

My book identifies three causes of our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere:
1. Technology (all technology pollutes);
2. Overpopulation (humans);
3. Human Hubris (the belief that we (humans) are the most important thing in the universe, and everything else can be used and destroyed at our whim).

number 2 is the only relevant point Technology can pollute but it can also do the opposite

We obviously are not the most important thing in the universe, and as most of the stuff in the universe is currently well out of our reach, and likely to remain so for a very very long time our attitude to it is irrelevant

We also have negligible influence on this planet , of which , like the dinosaurs, we are but temporary residents, and our also ,inevitable, extinction, will be no greater loss in the great scheme of things than the extinction of them

58 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

In my most recent book, I say as far as our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere, we're already "over the cliff." We can only slow it down, but cannot stop or reverse it. 😢

could not agree more, the only way of slowing it down is to reduce the population, That does not appear to be up for discussion and probably never will be so lets just crack on , and party like its 1999 as the song says No point in spending what is inevitably our final years, living in purgatory

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

You!

I only need the one word, but need to type more to make a worthwhile post.

brilliant response, i would nominate it for post of the year genuinely brightened up my day,

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Perhaps you have a problem connecting the dots.

i just have a problem being bothered, life is too short

21 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Technology can pollute but it can also do the opposite

Name me one technology that does not pollute...

Wow, were still near irreversible "hothouse" state? Have we defined "near" yet?

Let me guess, they need more money.

Where's @placeholder when you need him?

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Name me one technology that does not pollute...

Arithmetic

One can argue it pollutes, but then one would also have to argue everything pollutes.

On 2/16/2026 at 7:02 AM, nexus7 said:

Back in the 1970s experts all told us there was a new ice coming where a great big ice sheet would spread down from the arctic, covering everything in ice and we would all live in a perpetual winter. How did that all turn out?

The same way all science turns out. Models are proposed based on the best available data AT THAT MOMENT, and if they don't accurately reflect what's happening, those models are refined. Our instrumentation, data collection, and much more powerful computers have given us increasingly accurate data and models over the last half-century.

15 minutes ago, Peabody said:

The same way all science turns out. Models are proposed based on the best available data AT THAT MOMENT, and if they don't accurately reflect what's happening, those models are refined. Our instrumentation, data collection, and much more powerful computers have given us increasingly accurate data and models over the last half-century.

The last four centuries.

20 minutes ago, Peabody said:

The same way all science turns out. Models are proposed based on the best available data AT THAT MOMENT, and if they don't accurately reflect what's happening, those models are refined. Our instrumentation, data collection, and much more powerful computers have given us increasingly accurate data and models over the last half-century.

like the covid modelling

1 minute ago, Bday Prang said:

like the covid modelling

All that modeling, and they still can't beat the market.