Global temperatures hit the highest levels in recorded history on Sunday, according to preliminary data from Europe’s top climate monitor — another worrying sign of how human-caused climate change is pushing the planet into dangerous new territory.
Okay, so it was the hottest day in like the last 50 out of 4.5 billion or so years. What about it?Global temperatures hit the highest levels in recorded history on Sunday, according to preliminary data from Europe’s top climate monitor — another worrying sign of how human-caused climate change is pushing the planet into dangerous new territory.
Nothing. Everything is meaningless.Okay, so it was the hottest day in like the last 50 out of 4.5 billion or so years. What about it?
Well, not everything, but this is largely but not entirely, meaningless.Nothing. Everything is meaningless.
Global temperatures hit the highest levels in recorded history on Sunday, according to preliminary data from Europe’s top climate monitor — another worrying sign of how human-caused climate change is pushing the planet into dangerous new territory.
Okay, so it was the hottest day in like the last 50 out of 4.5 billion or so years. What about it?
But if you give them your money and your virgin daughters. they can appease the gods.....
OH NOOOOZZZZZ we are all going to die unless we give the grifters our wealth and our freedom.That's funny. Because when things get even worse you'll be looking for someone to sacrifice to get us out of the bad scenario.
When all along all we had to do was actually listen to the scientists and experts.
The question is what is / are the causes? I'm not buying the anthropogenic CO2 line.Yeah, looking at one data point in a time-series is not usually sufficient to establish a trend, but on the other hand we keep breaking these temperature records that are going up and up and up while we are supposed to be heading back into a new continental glaciation event.
It's almost as if we seeing what happens when you pump gigatons of excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it finally overcomes the negative forcing of Milankovich Cycles.
Almost as if science is real.
But, nah, let's just hope this was a "one off" kind of event along with all the other "one-off" events we've been living through.
We are the frogs being boiled in the pot. We needn't be so rash as to jump out of the pot. Let's just stay here and see how it all works out.
The question is what is / are the causes? I'm not buying the anthropogenic CO2 line.
It is not possible to accurately measure Earth's temperature. For starters, there are not enough thermometers being used.Global temperatures
The typical Church of Global Warming sermon. blah.hit the highest levels in recorded history on Sunday,
Invalid data. Summarily dismissed.according to preliminary data
There is nothing to "monitor" re: climate. Climate does not change, as climate is unquantifiable.from Europe’s top climate monitor —
Fear mongering based on meaningless buzzwords.another worrying sign of how human-caused climate change is pushing the planet into dangerous new territory.
I do not accept Washington Post as a valid source of anything. You cannot use them as a source with me.
Made up numbers are meaningless, dude.The results from the Copernicus Climate Change Service show the planet’s average temperature on July 21 was 17.09 degrees Celsius (62.76 degrees Fahrenheit) — breaking a record set only last year. The historic day comes on the heels of 13 straight months of unprecedented temperatures and the hottest year scientists have ever seen.
Invalid data is meaningless. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy.Yeah, looking at one data point in a time-series is not usually sufficient to establish a trend, but on the other hand we keep breaking these temperature records that are going up and up and up
"Supposed to be" is not the language of science. Those words, typically proceeded by the Marxist "we" as was done here, are a dead giveaway to the absence of science.while we are supposed to be heading back into a new continental glaciation event.
Define "excess CO2".It's almost as if we are seeing what happens when you pump gigatons of excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it finally overcomes the negative forcing of Milankovich Cycles.
Almost as if science is completely absent from your position on this matter.Almost as if science is real.
You're not making any sense.But, nah, let's just hope this was a "one off" kind of event along with all the other "one-off" events we've been living through.
You're still not making any sense.We are the frogs being boiled in the pot. We needn't be so rash as to jump out of the pot. Let's just stay here and see how it all works out.
The question is: Where is the additional energy coming from that is required in order to increase Earth's temperature?The question is what is / are the causes? I'm not buying the anthropogenic CO2 line.
Summarily dismissed due to being entirely based on made up numbers and meaningless buzzwords.It's not just CO2 but also a number of other human-generated greenhouse gases as well as land use changes (deforestation, etc.) but CO2 is a biggie because it is massively produced by human activity (we even know the current rise in CO2 is largely due to humans from the isotopic signature in the C) and excess CO2, unlike excess H2O, can't re-equilibrate back out of the atmosphere quickly. It relies on the carbon cycle which is much slower than the hydrologic cycle.
Right now when you look at all the possible forcings that can be taking a role in the warming the only ones that really fully line up with the trend we've seen since the mid-19th century have been "human forcings".
Natural forcings DEFINITELY do play a role, the IPCC is quite explicit on this. They do. But the data don't make sense until you factor in human forcings (like our dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year etc.)
My favorite graph compares temperature rise since 1850 and then they try to "recreate" the same trend using ONLY natural forcings and then ONLY human forcings and then BOTH in combination.
Natural forcings alone don't make a trend that looks like the ACTUAL temperature trend. Human forcings alone looks a lot closer but the two together really line up and explain the data quite well. Attribution studies are finding that at least 50% of the warming we've seen since the 1950's ahs likely been due to human activity.
![]()
Invalid data is meaningless. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy.
"Supposed to be" is not the language of science.
Define "excess CO2".
Define "greenhouse gases".
Define "negative forcing".
Explain how "excess CO2" generates the additional energy
Almost as if science is completely absent from your position on this matter.
You're not making any sense.
Summarily dismissed due to being entirely based on made up numbers and meaningless buzzwords.
There's no such thing.In climate science
Who is "they"?they
Any "change in temperature" first requires multiple ACCURATE temperature readings. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. There aren't enough thermometers to do so.don't focus on a single "temperature" number like your body temperature, but rather the CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE over time.
Any "temperature ANOMALY" first requires multiple ACCURATE temperature readings. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. There aren't enough thermometers to do so.What is measured is called the "temperature ANOMALY" or the temperature relative to a baseline temperature at the specific point.
Continued Marxist "we"... continued made up numbers... continued ignoring of any and all science.So if temps are overall going up but the globe is covered by a huge range of temperatures we can track the RELATIVE CHANGE as opposed to measuring a single global temp.
This is a silly response.This is a silly point.
So you can't define any of them?? Got it.All of those are freely available to you. I suggest you learn some of the topic before expressing an "opinion" on it.
So there's no temperature increase. Got it.It doesn't.
You cannot create additional energy by redistributing it.What it does is move the level in the atmosphere where the IR photons which are absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere and transferred to other CO2 molecules after being re-radiated out finally radiate back out into space.
So there's equilibrium? Got it. So where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from then that is required to increase Earth's temperature? Here, you are stating that Earth's temperature remains the same.The overall energy balance of the earth's atmosphere is a balance between incoming and outgoing.
Again, you cannot create additional energy by redistributing it. You are violating Stefan Boltzmann.If the level in the atmosphere at which the IR photons are re-radiated back out into space gets higher and higher the physics of that radiation become less efficient meaning lower down at the surface will be a warming. Personally I think of it as a line of traffic at a stoplight backing up as the stoplight gets shorter and shorter.
Projection.I'm the one who actually understands some of the science and I've attempted to explain it to you. It is up to you to learn some basic science as well.
Projection.Again, it is up to you to learn some basic science so the stuff I'm posting here will make sense. I wouldn't expect a first grader to understand the topic either.
There's no such thing.
Any "change in temperature" first requires multiple ACCURATE temperature readings. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. There aren't enough thermometers to do so.
Continued Marxist "we"... continued made up numbers... continued ignoring of any and all science.
You cannot create additional energy by redistributing it.