'Climate change', read geo engineering, has been the Deep State's weapon of choice this decade.

It will, in time, be the excuse to ground you.

'He who controls the weather controls the world!' as LBJ once declaimed.

C'mon. Don't be dumb people.

The climate crisis is tightening its grip, with greenhouse gas concentrations reaching fresh records as soils dry out and glaciers continue to lose ice at an alarming rate.

The latest State of the Climate report, produced by the American Meteorological Society with contributions from more than 600 scientists across 60 countries, found that key climate indicators are deteriorating in line with rising atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Soils are now drier than ever recorded

Global soil moisture in 2025 was lower than in any year since satellite records began in 1991. The sharpest drying was seen across the Northern Hemisphere, particularly at latitudes above 55 degrees north.

That matters because soil moisture helps regulate vegetation, temperatures and extreme weather. Drier ground can increase the risk of heatwaves and wildfires, creating a dangerous feedback as the planet warms.

Glaciers have lost ice for 38 straight years

Glaciers suffered another year of net ice loss in 2025, marking the 38th consecutive year in which they lost more ice during summer than they gained over winter.

Since 1976, around 9,000 gigatonnes of water have been lost from glaciers, with 41 per cent of that loss occurring during the past decade. At least 181 glaciers have now been classified as extinct using satellite records.

Greenhouse gases keep climbing

The warning signs extend into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide all reached record concentrations in 2025, with global average CO₂ reaching 425.6 parts per million — around 53 per cent above pre-industrial levels.

Fossil fuel emissions also hit a record, estimated at 10.3 petagrams of carbon during the year.

Dr Robert Dunn of the Met Office said the last three years had been “truly exceptional”, with temperatures far above 20th-century averages.

The report found 2025 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño influence, while 2023, 2024 and 2025 became the three warmest years recorded.

The message from scientists is stark: rising greenhouse gases are producing climate conditions consistent with continuing human-driven warming — and the damage is increasingly visible across the planet.

Rising greenhouse gas concentrations lead to ice loss and drying soils

I have not yet met anybody who is pro-abortion, pro-immigration, pro-lockdown, pro-big government, pro-Palestine, pro-Hamas, pro-welfare state....but is a climate denier.

I think there's a pattern there - just can't quite put my finger on it.

On 8/9/2026 at 2:36 PM, bannork said:

Britain is enduring a summer of record-breaking heat, drought and wildfires — and experts warn these extremes could become the new normal unless the country moves faster to cut emissions and prepare for a harsher climate.

This is already the new normal.

The warnings of FOUR DECADES AGO....went unheeded.

Does this mean that the UK will no-longer experience White Christmases....I wonder....?

May our days be Merry and Bright......

Edited August 10Aug 10 by GammaGlobulin

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

This is already the new normal.

The warnings of FOUR DECADES AGO....went unheeded.

Does this mean that the UK will no-longer experience White Christmases....I wonder....?

May our days be Merry and Bright......

But if the gulf stream is washed away by the Arctic melting, the UK climate maybe akin to Moscow's, in which case they'll be plenty of snow in the winter.

1 hour ago, bannork said:

But if the gulf stream is washed away by the Arctic melting, the UK climate maybe akin to Moscow's, in which case they'll be plenty of snow in the winter.

This is something that the next few generations will not need to worry about, most likely.

Check the projected timeline for the reversal of the thermohaline circulation....please.....

There is great inertia in the system.....maybe.....

16 hours ago, Rockyroad said:

Bangkok was 0.5 degrees cooler in 2025 compared to 2016 lol

You guys are so poorly researched.

Overall Daily Mean

~29.7°C (85.5°F)

~29.2°C (84.6°F)

A single mean data point in one city on the planet cherrypicked for two years proves your case beyond doubt.

If they give you an enema after you die, you won't need a coffin. They'll be able to bury you in a shoebox.

This is terrible. The sky is falling. The 4 horsemen of the apocalypse approach.

Where's Greta to save us?

Oh... Wait a minute... there she is... 😄

Must have been chilly to need a scarf and a balaclava. 😄

6 hours ago, Woke to Sounds said:

'Climate change', read geo engineering, has been the Deep State's weapon of choice this decade.

It will, in time, be the excuse to ground you.

'He who controls the weather controls the world!' as LBJ once declaimed.

C'mon. Don't be dumb people.

This boys and girls is what happens when you stay up all night watching the X-Files instead of getting a healthy amount of sleep.

On 8/9/2026 at 3:50 PM, SiSePuede419 said:

Breast skin stretchs a lot if you don't support it on cooling racks. 😃

Judging from some of the posts on different topics here I think cooling the brain is relevant. After all you need a brain to start with. You obviously have one but there are posts that would suggest otherwise.

I always ask the Greenies I meet what proportion of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. None of them know. I tell them it's 0.04% and they all go googling it to prove me wrong. Spoiler alert!

Then I suggest that plants and food crops require Co2 to survive, and guess what, these plants and trees produce O2, the stuff we humans need to successfully breathe. And then they google that to prove me wrong. Spoiler alert!.

Then I ask them if they pissed (urinated) into a 50 mile² lake, would all the fish die? Spoiler alert!

And then I ask them the square-root of 64, and it all goes to hell-in-a-handcart.

We won't discuss cube roots - Greenies don't do rocket science.

They wanted sun, they got it.

11 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

They wanted sun, they got it.

They wanted Spanish or Greek sun not British sun with the same temperature, everybody knows that Spanish or Greek sun at 30 degrees is nice but British sun at 30 degrees is too hot.

15 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

They wanted Spanish or Greek sun not British sun with the same temperature, everybody knows that Spanish or Greek sun at 30 degrees is nice but British sun at 30 degrees is too hot.

Everybody does not know...and which "they" are we talking about.

Monolithic statements on monolithic minds all in Borg union.

My previous post was blanket sarcasm.

Edited August 11Aug 11 by freedomnow

1 hour ago, freedomnow said:

Everybody does not know...and which "they" are we talking about.

Monolithic statements on monolithic minds all in Borg union.

My previous post was blanket sarcasm.MonolithicIf the

If the monolithic's ever invaded England they would be repelled by the Cyborgs we have a long standing mutual defence treaty with.

15 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

Judging from some of the posts on different topics here I think cooling the brain is relevant. After all you need a brain to start with. You obviously have one but there are posts that would suggest otherwise.

Sophistry. 😄

Sophistry means using clever, subtle, but ultimately false or misleading arguments to trick people or win a debate. It sounds smart and convincing at first, but the logic is wrong or dishonest.

Edited August 11Aug 11 by SiSePuede419
the logic is wrong or dishonest

8 hours ago, Gsxrnz said:

I always ask the Greenies I meet what proportion of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. None of them know. I tell them it's 0.04% and they all go googling it to prove me wrong. Spoiler alert! I’m

Then I suggest that plants and food crops require Co2 to survive, and guess what, these plants and trees produce O2, the stuff we humans need to successfully breathe. And then they google that to prove me wrong. Spoiler alert!.

Then I ask them if they pissed (urinated) into a 50 mile² lake, would all the fish die? Spoiler alert!

And then I ask them the square-root of 64, and it all goes to hell-in-a-handcart.

We won't discuss cube roots - Greenies don't do rocket science.

Nobody is proposing to get rid of CO2.

It’s clear you don’t do math either.

The UK’s lakes, rivers and beaches are poisoned by sewage.

Not by one Greenie pissing into a lake, but by a whole nation’s sewage from both humans and farm animals being dumped into waterways.

The gaping holes in your arguments suggests you’ve never actually presented them to a ‘Greenie’, or if you did they were trying not to offend you by not correcting you.

On 8/10/2026 at 10:31 PM, Lacessit said:

The planet went for 10,000 years with a CO2 level of about 260 ppm in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution, in less than 300 years the CO2 level has gone to about 425 ppm - an increase of over 60%.

In tha same time, the oceans have warmed by just under one degree C - an insignificant change, right?

Wrong - it is a change in stored heat energy almost beyond human comprehension.

The Tsar Bomba is the largest nuclear device ever detonated

on Earth. The energy released was 3,300 times more powerful

than the bomb that devastated Hiroshima. To raise the

temperature of the oceans by another 1 degree C, we would

need the equivalent of 26,300 Tsar Bombas — assuming

perfect transmission of heat energy, which entropy prevents.

Global warming is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Climate change is the First Law. Get used to it.

The nuclear bomb comparison vastly understates the true math.

Raising the temperature of the Earth's entire ocean mass by 1 deg C requires roughly 26 million Tsar Bombas, not 26,300.

While the upper ocean surface has warmed by nearly 1 deg C since the industrial revolution, the deep abyss remains largely unaffected, making the average temperature rise across the entire ocean volume far smaller 0.1 deg C.

Your thermodynamic summary is scientifically nonsensical.

The First Law (conservation of energy) and Second Law (entropy and heat transfer) both govern the Earth's climate system together. Heat enters, accumulates, and redistributes throughout the atmosphere and oceans via both laws simultaneously—splitting them to define "global warming" versus "climate change" is just poetic fluff, not physics.

13 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The nuclear bomb comparison vastly understates the true math.

Raising the temperature of the Earth's entire ocean mass by 1 deg C requires roughly 26 million Tsar Bombas, not 26,300.

While the upper ocean surface has warmed by nearly 1 deg C since the industrial revolution, the deep abyss remains largely unaffected, making the average temperature rise across the entire ocean volume far smaller 0.1 deg C.

Your thermodynamic summary is scientifically nonsensical.

The First Law (conservation of energy) and Second Law (entropy and heat transfer) both govern the Earth's climate system together. Heat enters, accumulates, and redistributes throughout the atmosphere and oceans via both laws simultaneously—splitting them to define "global warming" versus "climate change" is just poetic fluff, not physics.

Post your evidence the deep abyss is unaffected. And your Tsar Bomba calculations.Please tell me why Greenland is losing 270 gigatons of ice per year, if it is not from a warmer ocean.

The oceans are a heat battery, obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat flows from a hotter to a colder body. It needs work to reverse that process, that's why we have refrigerators and aircons.

Any meteorologist will tell you the higher the ocean temperature, the more violent the storm will be. The critical temperature is 26.5 C. Nowadays, land temperatures are exceeding 40C, in places that have not seen them before.

Your post is a good example of Hitchin's razor - what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Edited August 12Aug 12 by Lacessit

5 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Sophistry. 😄

Sophistry means using clever, subtle, but ultimately false or misleading arguments to trick people or win a debate. It sounds smart and convincing at first, but the logic is wrong or dishonest.

Difficult to image you won anything but tell yourself you have if it makes you happy.

It will be interesting, in the light of the ongoing heatwave, drought, wildfires, deaths through heat exhaustion etc , to see how the next update of polling on environmental issues comes out.

On 8/10/2026 at 9:41 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Nobody is trying to eliminate CO2.

There is an effort to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and store it underground in Louisiana, by pumping it into some kind of underground reservoir. I am being paid $1800.00 a year by a company that is doing that, storing the CO2 underneath property that I own there. I don't know exactly how it is being done and don't care. As far as I am concerned, it's found money.

My property is covered in trees so, in a way, eliminating CO2 from the air is already happening there on my property.

Edited August 12Aug 12 by radiochaser

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Post your evidence the deep abyss is unaffected. And your Tsar Bomba calculations.Please tell me why Greenland is losing 270 gigatons of ice per year, if it is not from a warmer ocean.

The oceans are a heat battery, obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat flows from a hotter to a colder body. It needs work to reverse that process, that's why we have refrigerators and aircons.

Any meteorologist will tell you the higher the ocean temperature, the more violent the storm will be. The critical temperature is 26.5 C. Nowadays, land temperatures are exceeding 40C, in places that have not seen them before.

Your post is a good example of Hitchin's razor - what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The 26,300 figure fails because you didn't actually do the basic high school math.

When you actually multiply the total weight of the world's oceans by the energy required to raise that water by 1°C, you quickly see they were off by a factor of 1,000—it takes 26 million Tsar Bombas, not 26,300.

As far as the ocean warming.

My claim is not that the oceans aren't warming; it is that warming is heavily concentrated in the upper layers, not distributed evenly through the abyss.

The Argo Float Array (NOAA/NASA Data): Over 3,800 autonomous profiling floats globally monitor temperature from the surface down to 2,000 meters.

Data shows that over 90% of excess planetary heat goes into the ocean, but ~64% is stored in the upper 700 meters, and another ~26% between 700 and 2,000 meters.

Measurements below 2,000 meters (Deep Argo) show abyssal warming rates of roughly 0.002 C to 0.01 C per decade—an order of magnitude smaller than the surface. Thermal stratification prevents rapid mixing into deep water, which takes centuries via thermohaline circulation.

https://argo.ucsd.edu/

https://www.ocean-ops.org/board

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/argo/

https://www.seanoe.org/data/00311/42182/

Because the total mass of the deep ocean is enormous, it absorbs a massive quantity of total heat energy (measured in Joules), but that energy is spread across such a vast volume that the overall average temperature reading of the full ocean has barely shifted.

Greenland's loss of 270 gigatons of ice per year is caused by two main drivers: surface air melting (warm atmospheric summer air) and glacier calving at the coast.

Marine-terminating glaciers interact with intermediate warm Atlantic water floating between 200 and 600 meters depth. Greenland melting actually proves that heat is concentrated in the atmosphere and the top few hundred meters of the ocean, where ice margins sit—not in the 4,000-meter-deep abyss.

Pointing out that tropical cyclones require a surface ocean temperature threshold of 26.5 or that land temperatures exceed 40 C attacks a straw man. No one disputed surface ocean warming, heat storage, or storm dynamics. The correction was strictly about inaccurate arithmetic and the distinction between surface temperature and total volumetric thermal heat capacity

45 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The 26,300 figure fails because you didn't actually do the basic high school math.

When you actually multiply the total weight of the world's oceans by the energy required to raise that water by 1°C, you quickly see they were off by a factor of 1,000—it takes 26 million Tsar Bombas, not 26,300.

As far as the ocean warming.

My claim is not that the oceans aren't warming; it is that warming is heavily concentrated in the upper layers, not distributed evenly through the abyss.

The Argo Float Array (NOAA/NASA Data): Over 3,800 autonomous profiling floats globally monitor temperature from the surface down to 2,000 meters.

Data shows that over 90% of excess planetary heat goes into the ocean, but ~64% is stored in the upper 700 meters, and another ~26% between 700 and 2,000 meters.

Measurements below 2,000 meters (Deep Argo) show abyssal warming rates of roughly 0.002 C to 0.01 C per decade—an order of magnitude smaller than the surface. Thermal stratification prevents rapid mixing into deep water, which takes centuries via thermohaline circulation.

https://argo.ucsd.edu/

https://www.ocean-ops.org/board

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/argo/

https://www.seanoe.org/data/00311/42182/

Because the total mass of the deep ocean is enormous, it absorbs a massive quantity of total heat energy (measured in Joules), but that energy is spread across such a vast volume that the overall average temperature reading of the full ocean has barely shifted.

Greenland's loss of 270 gigatons of ice per year is caused by two main drivers: surface air melting (warm atmospheric summer air) and glacier calving at the coast.

Marine-terminating glaciers interact with intermediate warm Atlantic water floating between 200 and 600 meters depth. Greenland melting actually proves that heat is concentrated in the atmosphere and the top few hundred meters of the ocean, where ice margins sit—not in the 4,000-meter-deep abyss.

Pointing out that tropical cyclones require a surface ocean temperature threshold of 26.5 or that land temperatures exceed 40 C attacks a straw man. No one disputed surface ocean warming, heat storage, or storm dynamics. The correction was strictly about inaccurate arithmetic and the distinction between surface temperature and total volumetric thermal heat capacity

I triple checked the Tsar Bomba figures with three differnt AI's - Gemini, Claude and Grok, then took an average. Obviously you are smarter than they are.

The AVERAGE temperature of the oceans has warmed by 1 degree C since the Industrial Revolution. While your argument as to stratification may be correct, accelerated glacier calving is caused by the Irminger current, an offshoot of the Gulf Stream.

Nothing you have posted disproves my claim global warming and climate change are an outcome of thermodynamic laws. Let me know when you have disproved them.

29 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

There is an effort to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and store it underground in Louisiana, by pumping it into some kind of underground reservoir. I am being paid $1800.00 a year by a company that is doing that, storing the CO2 underneath property that I own there. I don't know exactly how it is being done and don't care. As far as I am concerned, it's found money.

My property is covered in trees so, in a way, eliminating CO2 from the air is already happening there on my property.

Reducing CO2 (and other Greenhouse Gasses) is not eliminating either.

Underground gas storage is a well established technology, the US has been storing Helium underground for decades.

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Reducing CO2 (and other Greenhouse Gasses) is not eliminating either.

Underground gas storage is a well established technology, the US has been storing Helium underground for decades.

You better pray it doesn't, as life would cease to exist.

... "AI Overview

Without carbon dioxide (CO₂), most life on Earth would indeed cease to exist. CO₂ is the foundational building block for plant food via photosynthesis, drives the base of the global food chain, and acts as a vital greenhouse gas that keeps Earth warm enough to support liquid water." ...

Edited August 12Aug 12 by KhunLA

There is much misdirection on this topic, although I agree it is a man-made issues, it's just that a country like the UK emits 1% or less of the gobal emissions and has taken steps to vindicate itself on the topic. However, even if the UK became carbon neutral, it would make little difference because the real problems are to be found elsewhere.

Until China, India, the US, large parts of Africa/Asia that set everything annually on fire left, right, and center, and the likes of Brazil get on board and do something about their awful records, as they are the main big polluting countries... then whatever elsewhere does is a moot point really and just political virtue signalling that has little effect. Not saying smaller polluting countries shouldn't get their house in order too, but the pressure and focus should be on the main offenders who seem to care little about it. They will eventually have to do something about it as the pressure will grow, just have to hope it doesn't take too long.

49 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I triple checked the Tsar Bomba figures with three differnt AI's - Gemini, Claude and Grok, then took an average. Obviously you are smarter than they are.

The AVERAGE temperature of the oceans has warmed by 1 degree C since the Industrial Revolution. While your argument as to stratification may be correct, accelerated glacier calving is caused by the Irminger current, an offshoot of the Gulf Stream.

Nothing you have posted disproves my claim global warming and climate change are an outcome of thermodynamic laws. Let me know when you have disproved them.

No one is saying they are smarter than anyone, but maths are maths....

Instead of showing your math or working through Q = M x c x Delta T, you are hiding behind an "average of three AI models." Relying on an average of text summaries instead of executing basic multiplication is classic deflection.

To find out how much energy (Q) you need to heat something up, multiply how much of it you have (M) by how hard it is to warm up (c) by how many degrees you want to raise it (ΔT).

Averaging three AI hallucinations still doesn't beat high school maths.

"The AVERAGE temperature of the oceans has warmed by 1 degree C since the Industrial Revolution", is INCORRECT, you are conflating the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) with the entire ocean volume.

If the entire mass of the world's oceans had actually warmed by 1 C, thermal expansion alone would have already caused global sea levels to rise by roughly 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet).

In reality, actual sea level rise observed since 1900 is about 20 centimeters (8 inches), directly confirming that warming is heavily concentrated in the thin upper layer of the ocean.

Bringing up the Irminger Current proves the stratification point, rather than refuting it.

The Irminger Current is an upper-to-intermediate Atlantic ocean current that flows at depths of 200 to 600 meters along the East Greenland shelf.

It delivers warm, salty subtropical water directly into glacial fjords, melting the shallow marine termini of Greenland's outlet glaciers (like Jakobshavn and Helheim).

This explicitly demonstrates that warming is concentrated in subsurface boundary currents near the top 600 meters—not in the 4,000-meter abyssal depths. Greenland is melting precisely because upper-ocean currents carry heat, not because the deep ocean floor has warmed by 1 C.

No one is attempting to "disprove" the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The error lies in claiming that "Global warming is the 2nd Law, Climate change is the 1st Law."

Both physical laws operate simultaneously across all climate dynamics. Inventing an arbitrary split between "global warming" and "climate change" using two unified laws of physics is a rhetorical maneuver, not physical science.

3 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The 26,300 figure fails because you didn't actually do the basic high school math.

When you actually multiply the total weight of the world's oceans by the energy required to raise that water by 1°C, you quickly see they were off by a factor of 1,000—it takes 26 million Tsar Bombas, not 26,300.

As far as the ocean warming.

My claim is not that the oceans aren't warming; it is that warming is heavily concentrated in the upper layers, not distributed evenly through the abyss.

The Argo Float Array (NOAA/NASA Data): Over 3,800 autonomous profiling floats globally monitor temperature from the surface down to 2,000 meters.

Data shows that over 90% of excess planetary heat goes into the ocean, but ~64% is stored in the upper 700 meters, and another ~26% between 700 and 2,000 meters.

Measurements below 2,000 meters (Deep Argo) show abyssal warming rates of roughly 0.002 C to 0.01 C per decade—an order of magnitude smaller than the surface. Thermal stratification prevents rapid mixing into deep water, which takes centuries via thermohaline circulation.

https://argo.ucsd.edu/

https://www.ocean-ops.org/board

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/argo/

https://www.seanoe.org/data/00311/42182/

Because the total mass of the deep ocean is enormous, it absorbs a massive quantity of total heat energy (measured in Joules), but that energy is spread across such a vast volume that the overall average temperature reading of the full ocean has barely shifted.

Greenland's loss of 270 gigatons of ice per year is caused by two main drivers: surface air melting (warm atmospheric summer air) and glacier calving at the coast.

Marine-terminating glaciers interact with intermediate warm Atlantic water floating between 200 and 600 meters depth. Greenland melting actually proves that heat is concentrated in the atmosphere and the top few hundred meters of the ocean, where ice margins sit—not in the 4,000-meter-deep abyss.

Pointing out that tropical cyclones require a surface ocean temperature threshold of 26.5 or that land temperatures exceed 40 C attacks a straw man. No one disputed surface ocean warming, heat storage, or storm dynamics. The correction was strictly about inaccurate arithmetic and the distinction between surface temperature and total volumetric thermal heat capacity

However, most life is concentrated in the upper sea layer, and ecosystems are starting to be affected by ocean warming.

Moreover, ocean water stratification may increase. Warm water is less dense, so the warm surface layer is less likely to mix with the colder, denser water below. It may lead not only to reduced heat exchanges, but also reduced nutrient exchanges between layers.

Average temperature is also not a fully relevant indicator, as there are significant geographical concentrations of heat increase, such as localised ocean heatwaves.

My main fear is feedback loops which are nearly impossible to take into account in models.

Ex. More heat-> more fires->more CO2->more heat-> more fire etc...

Or more heat->more gas from melted permafrost-> more heat, etc...

21 minutes ago, candide said:

However, most life is concentrated in the upper sea layer, and ecosystems are starting to be affected by ocean warming.

Moreover, ocean water stratification may increase. Warm water is less dense, so the warm surface layer is less likely to mix with the colder, denser water below. It may lead not only to reduced heat exchanges, but also reduced nutrient exchanges between layers.

Average temperature is also not a fully relevant indicator, as there are significant geographical concentrations of heat increase, such as localised ocean heatwaves.

My main fear is feedback loops which are nearly impossible to take into account in models.

Ex. More heat-> more fires->more CO2->more heat-> more fire etc...

Or more heat->more gas from melted permafrost-> more heat, etc...

Yes, I agree with what you say.

I was just pointing out the errors in another posters comment!