Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (November 2022-October 2023). Analysis using Climate

I understand. You also can't answer because you have no real clue what science actually is and says. You just repeat back tired, old baloney that the rest of the true believers have been hammering for half a century without any results to show for it.

But carry on believing that your opinion matters. The practical end is in sight. And because you steadfastly believe in a fraud, there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Ahhh! Mate! In the grand scheme of things what matters is that the governments of the world are following the science as it is set out in the IPCC reports. One persons opinion on one internet discussion board making unsupported claims that somehow the science that has been accepted for the last 150 years is somehow wrong - well impact level is low to zero.

Sorry old chap! But if you want to actually make a change in the world as it is and what is the currently accepted science I suggest you write a paper. I would be happy to help

 

In my time here I've come to understand how to differentiate between people with backgrounds in real science and those without a clue as to how science works like you.

Here's a hint: any reference to "peer review" or writing "papers" means you're just cribbing the party line and have no clue what science is.

And I'm fully confident in my ability to make a change in the world when/if I get asked again. It's been very helpful being here and hearing from folks who know what they're talking about.

But good luck in your junior college adjunct technical writing teaching career. I'm certain all those kids who don't know how to format a technical report appreciate it.

That is if they ever use it after they graduate.

 

The links are to the actual papers.
Alimonti et al., 2022
Gardi et al., 2022
Govere et al., 2022
Fischer et al., 2022

 

Sorry Jack - hate to break it to you but I don’t hang on your every post old mate so I might miss the occasional real paper. Speaking of which the first link is to a paper with the giant word “retracted” blazoned across it. Don’t think that one is valid do you?
A bit of hunting and I found why it was retracted

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04386-3

it’s late here - I will review the rest tomorrow

 

Lols to the disdain for peer review

 

The retraction was the scandal.
The Alimonti Addendum - by Roger Pielke Jr.

Substack · The Honest Broker
120+ likes · 3 months ago


... retracted a 2022 paper — Alimonti et al. — after it received negative press coverage in The Guardian and AFP, including criticism from oft ...

 

That depends on why it was retracted: methodology or political correctness.

IOW, it was retracted to conform to Springer's political priorities: the editors could not identify any specific error in it, but its conclusions were deemed politically unacceptable, so it was refused publication.

And that's what you are pleased to call, "science."

 

And what has the sun been doing the last two years....?

<crickets>

And as we know for certain that cold-related deaths outnumber heat-related deaths by an order of magnitude, the global warming that the super-active sun has caused in the last two years will very likely cause a much larger decrease in cold-related deaths.

But no one is allowed to mention such facts in the peer-reviewed journals. If they do, the editors just retract the paper. Problem solved.

 

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Disraeli

 

The data support it: in the paleoclimate record, the correlation coefficient between CO2 level and previous temperature is much higher than the coefficient with subsequent temperature. Can you find a willingness to know the fact that that proves temperature affects CO2 much more than CO2 affects temperature?

So? The old data confirm it just fine.

 

Don't be disingenuous.

 

So-called "greenhouse" gases (it's actually a misnomer, as greenhouses work by blocking convection, not radiation) warm the earth's surface in a way that is analogous to a blanket warming a person in a bed.

Actually, a person gets their thermal energy from food, whose energy ultimately comes from the sun, just like the warmth of the earth's surface. A blanket doesn't stop a person from eating food, but it does slow down the loss of heat from their skin. Similarly, greenhouse gases do not block the visible wavelengths of sunlight (by far the majority of its energy) from reaching the ground, but do slow the loss of heat from the ground by infrared radiation.

I have explained this to you many times.

 

The climategate emails proved it.

 

And you accuse us of conspiracy theories??

It is not well documented, or documented at all. It is just a smear with no basis in fact, which you have been corrected on many times, and keep repeating even though you know it has no basis in fact.

 

No, that's just a smear with no basis in fact.

 

Relationship to CO2 = zero (0)

Evidence that this has been caused by CO2 rather than agricultural fertilizer and pesticide runoff, heavy metal pollution, overfishing, etc., etc. = zero (0)

Average agricultural yields worldwide continue to increase partly as a result of warmer temperatures, resulting greater precipitation, and CO2 fertilization.

Too dry? CO2 is to blame! Too wet? CO2 is to blame! Too hot? CO2 is to blame! Too cold? CO2 is to blame!

We get it.

 

This you have correct.

This you have wrong, and I've corrected you countless times re: it.

This you have mostly correct, but none of that changes the fact that a person is a thermal energy source. The thermal energy is being radiated from the person.

This you have correct.

A blanket's usefulness comes from its ability to REDUCE HEAT.

"Greenhouse gases" (which don't exist) do not reduce heat. There is open convection in Earth's atmosphere (IOW, there is no trapped air underneath a "greenhouse gas blanket").

Greenhouses are useful due to their ability to REDUCE HEAT.

... and I've corrected your mistakes time and time again as well.

The Church of Global Warming makes claim to an inexplicable spontaneous increase in earth's average global temperature despite unchanging solar output... IOW, Earth's equilibrium temperature somehow increases without any additional thermal energy being present. This is an egregious violation of Planck's Law, the 0th Law of Thermodynamics and of all black body science, really.

........ but "the smart people" say that "we're all gonna die" from "climate crisis" unless the "caring liberals" tyrannically take away or otherwise control all aspects of the diet and movements of "them damn capitalist freedom-loving conservatives" who want to "eat their weight in meat" and "drive their gas guzzlers around everywhere".

 

And all the rest.

No, I have it right, and I have corrected you.

Like thermal energy being radiated from the earth's surface.

It doesn't reduce heat. It reduces heat loss. Everyone knows this.

<sigh> The "greenhouse" gases in the air itself are the blanket. Blankets do not work by trapping air. If they did, plastic wrap would work even better. It doesn't.

That will be news to greenhouse operators, who use them to increase heat.

No, you have never corrected any mistake of mine, only repeated your own.

The earth is not a black body, as its emission spectrum depends on the concentrations of greenhouse gases.

I am aware of the scaremongering. Your nonscience is unresponsive to it.

 

Our atmospheric CO2 concentration is outside the range of the last 800K years by a massive amount.

I don't find climatologists who suggest ignoring these greenhouse gas concentrations on the grounds that it all worked out in the past.

Also, the juxtaposition in time of the peaks in CO2 and temperature is not proof of causality like you want it to be.

 

Climategate was subject to massive misunderstandings of what was being said.

 

So what? Given the FACT that life thrived when CO2 and temperature were both massively higher than they are now, you need to explain why higher CO2 is cause for concern rather than celebration. And you can't.

Again: So what? Climatologists have to try to understand how greenhouse gases affect climate, so obviously they are not going to just ignore them. That doesn't mean CO2 governs the earth's surface temperature.

Again: So what? It's not "proof," but the fact that temperature affects CO2 far more than CO2 affects temperature demonstrates quite conclusively that CO2 is not a major factor governing global surface temperature.

 

You mean ex post facto excuse making.

 

Low 40s here in the morning in Southwest Florida.

 

??
The chart I cited shows that temps today are above average and that CO2 levels are MASSIVELY higher.

Yes, that's one thing climatologists have to figure out. You just don't like their progress so far!

The chart I showed does not suggest that it is temperature that drives CO2. It just shows that in the past, CO2 has peaked shortly after temperature peaks.

Yes, they do point out other sources of warming - such as methane, reduction in surface albedo, etc. But, atmospheric CO2 can't just be ignored!