Sent to you — Agree to Disagree

Thanks. If anybody else is interested in an interesting discussion, let me know. I can add you on.

Could you explain what you think this data shows? — frank

I have just found the most amazing website which shows "The Weather Year Round Anywhere on Earth"

It has incredible temperature maps which show the average temperature for a large number of locations by time of year and time of day

The website is called
https://weatherspark.com

Here is the home page

Wow, that's fascinating.

Wow, that's fascinating. — frank

Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm" (e.g. London, Vancouver, San Francisco, Stockholm, plus many many more)

Sure.

Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm" — Agree to Disagree

:lol:

Climate change: refuted.

Yep. Totally refuted. :rofl:

The commentary on this photo, dated 2015, was that it is a female who has to stay near to land to feed her young. As the pack ice that she would usually swim out and forage on has been radically depleted by (ahem) climate change there is insufficient food and she and her cubs are facing imminent death. One of many species threatened by climate change.

Duke Energy has plans to bring a nuclear reactor online in NC

"It’s part of a newly-filed update to Duke’s 2022 integrated resource plan as the utility aims to comply with North Carolina’s emission mandates. That 2021 law requires utilities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 70% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. The law also calls for net-zero emissions by 2050."

Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm" — Agree to Disagree

That is all irrelevant to your argument. To show that there is or there is no global warming you have to find data that is global not local, cover at least decades, and that also can be clearly interpreted convincingly to non-experts like us to strongly suggest one or the other alternative.

What could that be? London is too local, any specific maximum temperature reading is too prone to some special occurrence at that time and place. What can be used are the mean temperature reading taken globally by satellites and summarized graphically for non-mathematicians. Agencies with supercomputers like ECMWF or the NOAA do this. There are a number of historical global charts maintained just for discussions like ours.

All you have to do is find one great chart that supports your argument, whatever you say your argument may be.

One that I like is this one because each decade is shown in a different color, starting with the 1940's at the bottom and the 2020's at the top as I would expect from a claim of incessant global warming. The very top line is 2023



Given that El Nino is kicking in, and that last January 2022 the vulcano Hunga-Tonga blasted water crystals all over the stratosphere, and most of all because humanity is FUBAR, there is little good to hope for here. I'm worried but not yet panicked.

That is all irrelevant to your argument. To show that there is or there is no global warming you have to find data that is global not local, — magritte

He has never argued against global warming. One of the moderators continuously responds as if he has made that argument, even though he has repeatedly explained that he does affirm global warming. It's just confusion coming from the moderators for reasons only they might know.

One that I like is this one because each decade is shown in a different color, starting with the 1940's at the bottom and the 2020's at the top as I would expect from a claim of incessant global warming. The very top line is 2023 — magritte

Exactly. But like most climate deniers, he’ll go on believing climate scientists are “hiding” things from the public.

“Look! This place hasn’t gotten that warm this year. Why wouldn’t climate scientists tell us this??”

It’s just so transparent it’s barely worth responding to seriously anymore. But I’m glad you did.

I spent a few braincells wondering why the global temperature seemed to mimic the N. hemisphere seasons. Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N.

*Puts the tinfoil hat down again, gently.*

Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N. — unenlightened

There IS a planet "B".

It is called the Southern Hemisphere :grin:

Sorry. I should have split the sentences and started a new heading. Even better, make a separate post for a philosophical rant.

Saying anything about any scientific subject at least implies an expressed or unexpressed position by the speaker and further that there exists some sort of scientific support for that position.

Pro or con.
But normally, on popularized scientific topics only the pro positions are acceptable for fear that children might believe them. For example, If I now propose a hypothetically possible case against global warming or one for a rapidly approaching ice age, rather than being ignored it will raise eyebrows and I might be accused of ignorance or ill will.

I spent a few braincells wondering why the global temperature seemed to mimic the N. hemisphere seasons. Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N. — unenlightened

I think that point and others similar are reasons for doubt. Up to about 10 years ago I was uncommitted on global warming but the evidence kept piling on year after year until I gave in. Most importantly the Antarctic ice sheet was getting colder and thicker even after Greenland started melting. This plus that the Southern Hemisphere has longer and colder winters by a slight bit due to the Earth's orbit not being perfectly round. But sea levels and temperatures were rising globally and that was what I was watching for.

Sorry. I should have split the sentences and started a new heading. Even better, make a separate post for a philosophical rant.

Saying anything about any scientific subject at least implies an expressed or unexpressed position by the speaker and further that there exists some sort of scientific support for that position.

Pro or con.
But normally, on popularized scientific topics only the pro positions are normally acceptable for fear that children might believe them. For example, If I now propose a hypothetically possible case against global warming or one for a rapidly approaching ice age, rather than being ignored it will raise eyebrows and I might be accused of ignorance or ill will. — magritte

Gotcha. It's just that a pile-on has started a couple of times on the poor guy, and I just thought that was abusive and wrong. I found that just piping up from time to time kept the yen from devaluating. :razz:

And I understand that there probably are people of ill will roaming about. It's easy enough to sort it out.

One of the moderators continuously responds as if he has made that argument, even though he has repeatedly explained that he does affirm global warming. It's just confusion coming from the moderators for reasons only they might know. — frank

Not true. I pointed out that he adopts the pose that acknowledges climate change BUT then says that climate science and scientists have gotten it all wrong, and that nothing can be done about it, along with irrelevant and preposterous arguments to the effect that more people die from cold than from heat, that not everywhere on the planet is hot, etc. Plainly intent on muddying the waters.

Meanwhile in the real world

America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

A new study published Thursday in the journal PLOS Climate found the wealthiest 10% of Americans are responsible for almost half of planet-heating pollution in the US, and called on governments to shift away from “regressive” taxes on the carbon-intensity of what people buy and focus on taxing climate-polluting investments instead.

“Global warming can be this huge, overwhelming, nebulous thing happening in the world and you feel like you’ve got no agency over it. You kind of know that you’re contributing to it in some way, but it’s really not clear or quantifiable,” said Jared Starr, a sustainability scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a report author. — CNN

See source for more.

Not true. I pointed out that he adopts the pose that acknowledges climate change BUT then says that climate science and scientists have gotten it all wrong, and that nothing can be done about it, along with irrelevant and preposterous arguments to the effect that more people die from cold than from heat, that not everywhere on the planet is hot, etc. Plainly intent on muddying the waters. — Quixodian

You're agreeing that he acknowledges climate change. Whatever else he might think, none of it warrants abuse. Ban him if you don't like him. Don't engage in a pile on with nasty language. That's just unnecessary.

Whatever else he might think, none of it warrants abuse. — frank

None of what I said constituted abuse.

None of what I said constituted abuse. — Quixodian

Good. Let's keep it that way. :up:

There's no need to tell me to stop doing something that I haven't done.

There's no need to tell me to stop doing something that I haven't done. — Quixodian

What you haven't done is stand up for me when Benkei told me to "shut the fuck up" and when Mikie directed abusive language at Agree-to-Disagree. But this isn't the place for a discussion of your short comings. Open a feedback thread if you have anything else to say.

Good to see this is all you have left to say after a series of absurd claims.

So what’s your next climate denial trope? That the sun is hot? Maybe it’s volcanoes? Water vapor?

Anything else? Or is that the best you have— that a bunch of places on earth haven’t gotten “warm”?

Not to beat a dead climate denial horse, but to go back to an earlier discussion about “carbon footprints” (the fossil fuel engineered way of shifting blame to the average citizen):

They found those who make enough income to be in the top 10 percent of American households are responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The top 1 percent of households accounted for 15 to 17 percent of the nation’s emissions, with investment holdings making up 38 to 42 percent of their emissions.

Then there were “super-emitters” with extremely high overall greenhouse gas emissions, corresponding to about the top 0.1 percent of households. About 15 days of emissions from a super-emitter was equal to a lifetime of emissions for someone in the poorest 10 percent in America.

The team found that the highest emissions linked to income came from White, non-Hispanic homes, and the lowest came from Black households. Emissions peaked until age 45 to 54, and then declined.

The richest Americans account for 40 percent of U.S. climate emissions

But yeah, let’s not blame the fossil industry (“only giving people what they want”) or the wealthiest Americans/Wall Street, let’s focus our attention on individuals and their carbon footprints.

Stupidity knows no bounds on this issue.

Heresy of the day.

Climate change is already killing people faster than covid ever did. We should be in carbon lockdown.

Climate change is already killing people faster than covid ever did. We should be in carbon lockdown. — unenlightened

Oh, the irony.

Well, I did love not having planes fly over my head every minute during the high season so I'm game!

Thoughts for the day:

Reducing biogenic carbon won't reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long-run, because it is a cycle.

Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon is a waste of time and will hurt many country's economies. If a country's economy is hurt then the country will have less resources to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon wastes the resources that could be used to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

If we reduce the number of cows, all sorts of things would be better, but I agree that fossil fuels are what we need to focus on.