Sunday was the hottest day on earth in history

I didn't get many points when I declined to attend a presentation. I was not going to get up and put an extremely optimistic spin on our capabilities. In general it's a bad idea to let technical people out of their cages. Even if you try to adhere to the party line you tend to have moments of truthfulness.

OK, lets use your thinking a bit further. Water is good for those plants. whey are plants and people not submerged all the time? Water is good, right?

Here is some info about them

WTF?

They're not, are you living in a terrarium?

Hint - cluebat.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray Colorado State University This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray Colorado State University This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.

Your "science" is a political s*it show.

He knows. Ed just does it on purpose.

Agreed!

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. --Upton Sinclair

That is the best way ato respond to a hoax.

I do believe the precambrian expansion was 2,000 ppm. It was the most life our planet has ever experienced (or so we think, the science is always on going).

I have heard the hoaxers state that 500 ppm would mean the end of all of us.

They refuse to learn about the "CO2 cycle" and how it affect all life (except those on thermal vents) on this planet. Ant eh tiny bit of extra CO2 in our atmosphere is probably responsible for the record food production we are seeing.

Not one of these trump retard cultists can explain an understanding of how greenhouse gasses could warm the planet, and then explain why it does not warm the planet.

I am waiting! Come on retards. Prove to us that you know why greenhouse gasses are not warming the planet.

Not if there is adequate ventilation.

(sarcasm)

What a sloppy article, Ed... thought I'd "drop by" to make a few "corrections", I hope you don't mind...

;-D

Hmmmm... and of course solid clinate data refutes the above article's [shaky!] premise...

Here's an in - depth exploration of the subject, many graphs and charts are included, but it's a fairly straightforward read; both sides of the issue are presented:

PREMISE: 2023 Was Earth’s Hottest 12 Months in 125,000 years

"Present temperatures are unusually cool, not warm. Scientific data has long shown that temperatures throughout most of the past 10,000 years were as warm or warmer than today. Recent modest warming has not changed that... Even when we examine longer-term data, present temperatures are unusually cool. We are presently in a warmer period between ice age glaciations. Proxy data suggests that every one of the previous six interglacial warm periods were warmer than the present..."

10 November 2023

PRO: Extreme weather has seen records broken and many lives lost or displaced in 2023.

Last month exceeded the previous highest October average temperature, from 2019, by 0.4 degrees Celsius, the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Deputy Director Samantha Burgess said, describing the temperature anomaly as “very extreme”.

That has made 2023 as a whole “virtually certain” to be the warmest year recorded, C3S said in a statement.

The heat is a result of continued greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, combined with the emergence this year of the naturally occurring El Nino climate pattern, which warms the surface waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean..."

Hottest 12 months in 125,000 years - how extreme weather broke more records in 2023

By Ian Sale, news reporter

Friday 29 December 2023

Extreme weather has seen records broken and many lives lost or displaced in 2023.

Scientists believe preliminary figures show the past 12 months to be the hottest in 125,000 years.

Here's a look at some of the year's biggest weather-related events from across the globe...

CON: Temperatures were warmer than the present for much of the past

Image: Temperature reconstruction from present day to 11,300 years ago showing the warmer than today period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.

View this page as a printable (PDF) here: CAAG hottest in 125000 years

Key Takeaways:

- Climate activists and the mainstream media often claim temperatures have reached the “hottest in 125,000 years.”

- In reality, temperatures were warmer than the present for much of the past 10,000 years, including most of the time period that human civilization has existed.

- The warmer recent past has been long established by many data and sources, including the very first United Nations climate assessment.

- Any recent claims of “hottest in 125,000 years” must show with specificity how and why these many long-established temperature histories, which have long agreed with each other, are wrong, yet no compelling evidence has been presented.

Short Summary:

Present temperatures are unusually cool, not warm. Scientific data has long shown that temperatures throughout most of the past 10,000 years were as warm or warmer than today. Recent modest warming has not changed that. The unusually cool present temperatures have been reported and demonstrated by multiple peer-reviewed studies, data from the European Science Foundation, and even the very first United Nations climate assessment.

Even when we examine longer-term data, present temperatures are unusually cool. We are presently in a warm period between ice age glaciations. Proxy data suggests that every one of the previous six interglacial warm periods were warmer than the present.

When climate activists claim temperatures are the hottest in 125,000 years, they are ignoring and attacking long-established scientific data...

Figure 1: Historic temperatures measured through Greenland ice cores. Since the last ice age glaciation ended 10,000 years ago, temperatures have typically been much warmer than today. Source: Dahl-Jensen et al, Science 283, 268 (1998).

Also, a 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Science reconstructed temperatures from the present back to 11,300 years ago. As seen in Figure 2, the study confirms temperatures were much warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than the present for most of the past 10,000 years.

The very first climate assessment report in 1990 from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agreed. The chart below from the report shows that temperatures during most of the past 10,000 years were warmer than today...

In summary, the multitude of credible, long-established scientific evidence conclusively shows that present temperatures are nowhere near the ‘hottest in 125,000 years..."

;-D

It is pure idiocy.

Come on T, tell us how are greenhouse theorized to warm the planet, and your theory on why they are not.

Prove to us that you have a concept of the science.

Since I'm a "science" kinda guy, Ed, I'm dropping by here to "assist" you...

And since you're a rfc good pal, I won't charge you a *single* kopeck for my help...!!!

;-D

Again, much data and embedded links here to prove my point; both sides of the issue are presented. Notice how the FAO premise/data

Climate Change vs. Crop Production

Longer growing seasons, higher temperatures, and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are creating ideal crop conditions... As our planet gradually warms, global crop yields and crop yields across the planet continue setting new records almost every year...

Global warming lengthens growing seasons, reduces frost events, and makes more land conducive for crop production. Global soil moisture has maintained pace or modestly improved as global temperatures have risen modestly, with greater oceanic evaporation leading to more global precipitation, especially during summer and fall crop seasons..

Further, carbon dioxide greatly benefits crop production, as atmospheric carbon dioxide works as aerial fertilizer. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels assist plant growth and resistance to drought and heat. It is for this reason that greenhouses often pump in elevated amounts of carbon dioxide..."

Here ya go, there is a feast of agricultural data in the link below:

Climate Change vs. Crop Production

Climate change has both direct and indirect effects on agricultural productivity including changing rainfall patterns, drought, flooding and the geographical redistribution of pests and diseases. The vast amounts of CO₂ absorbed by the oceans causes acidification, influencing the health of our oceans and those whose livelihoods and nutrition depend on them. FAO is supporting countries to both mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change through a wide range of research based and practical programmes and projects, as an integral part of the 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals..."

CON: Food Production is Growing and Safe

FAO’s latest forecast for global cereal production in 2024 has been raised by 7.9 million tonnes (0.3 percent) in July and is now pegged at

"As our planet gradually warms, global crop yields and crop yields across the planet continue setting new records almost every year. Not just global, but U.S. crop yields also continue to grow, setting new records nearly every year....

Longer growing seasons, higher temperatures, and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are creating ideal crop conditions...

As global climate modestly warms, U.S. and global crop yields are setting new records almost every year. The same is true for nearly all other nations, too. Thanks in large part to longer growing seasons, fewer frost events, more precipitation, and the fertilization effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide, farmers are producing more food on less land, allowing them to feed a growing global population...

Crop Production Facts: The 2019 and 2023 global crop years brought record production of the important cereal crops; corn, wheat, and rice. This builds on previous records set nearly every year during the past decade. Almost every important U.S. crop has set record yields per acre during the past three years (latest data for when this summary went to press in February 2020), with most of the top 10 years in yields-per-acre occurring during the past decade. For example, each of the three record-high corn yields have occurred during the past three years. Each of the five record-high rice yields have occurred during the past five years. Each of the past nine years have produced top-10 all-time wheat yields..."

;-D

" ... did a little something ... "

Like *what*, exactly, Ed...???

Name three things that "the Trumpers" might do - be *specific*, and back up your points...

Ball is in your court...

Here, to kindly assist I'll give you the SMART Goals template I've used for decades with my social service/education clients:

SMART goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.

They allow you to write goals that are clear, attainable and meaningful.

Having clarity in your goal-setting provides the motivation and focus you need to be successful..."

WTF? This is, even for someone as dumb as T, seriously a f***ed up question. It does say something about T, as most of the CO2 generators are used to grow pot.

However, any idiot (other than T apparently) would realize that the amount of CO2 released by commercial growers to the atmosphere is dwarfed by the amount released by burning fossil fuels. Not even 1 millionth of 1 percent. Not to mention that that the generated CO2 never leaves the greenhouse, it's converted into O2 by the plants with the carbon sequestered in the plant matter - it would be pointless otherwise to waste the energy used to create the CO2 in the first place.

I don't LIKE saying this to you but that's the way it is, and you should know it.

Pre-industrial CO2 = 280.

Post-industrial CO2 = 420 pm.

CO2 levels during earth's most fecund epochs = 3,000-9,000 ppm!

You moron.

Changes in ocean currents may cause global warning By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University

As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray Colorado State University This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.