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

There are always scientists who are working to refute the currently accepted model in pretty much every field of science.

This is one of the strengths of science as practiced today.

However, their existence does not suggest that their hypotheses are valid.

It does mean we need to be making decisions in a world where challenges of hypotheses are constantly arising.

I don't deny the laws you mention. Why would you even suggest that?

But, I suspect that climatologists know about those laws, as I don't know how anyone could get even just a BS without knowing these laws, as they are at least proximate to pretty much every field of natural science.

I don't believe you can find a climate scientist who doesn't know these laws very well.

 

So I guess they're just ignoring them.

 

Okay. So? Let me know once the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law have been falsified......

I'm not sure what "strengths of science" is supposed to mean, but yes, all theories of science are indeed falsifiable and are indeed constantly being "put to the test", IOW continuing to survive null hypothesis testing.

Quite the opposite, actually. Their existence (and continuance in surviving null hypothesis testing, aka not being falsified) means that there is good reason to believe that they are valid.

This is a meaningless statement due to how vague it is. The laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law are currently a part of science, as they have yet to be falsified. Let me know when they are falsified. Until then, the Global Warming faith is a physics-denying faith.

Yes, you do.

Because you falsely claim that reducing Earth's radiance would increase Earth's temperature, in complete violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which says that those two things are directly proportional... You know... both sides of an equation MUST equal...

Because you falsely claim that heat can flow from cold to hot, in complete violation of the 2nd LoT, which says that heat flows from hot to cold. You can't put ice cubes into room temperature water to bring that water to a boil...

Because you falsely claim that NO additional thermal energy is needed in order to raise the temperature of Earth, which completely denies the very definition of temperature itself (and the 0th LoT).

Many people know the laws, but simply choose to deny them in favor of a wacky physics-denying religion called Globull Warming.

 

OK.

Write and publish a paper showing your investigation of climatology and pointing out how scientists all over the world are ignoring basic laws of physics.

 

I've already extensively written about it on this forum (and others). The laws that I mention are still in full force and effect, regardless of whether or not I write and publish a paper.

Most physics-deniers have a very formulaic pattern of three faulty arguments that they switch back and forth between. You've followed them all as is, except for modifying the first faulty argument (the "main" argument which denies the 1st LoT) into an even more ridiculous position of denying the very definition of temperature itself (and the 0th LoT).

 

This forum is not where actual working scientists hang out.

If you want to explain to climatologists how they blundered so badly, you have to address THEM.

 

Oh, it's going to happen.

In another decade.

And I bet in another decade, they will be saying the exact same thing. In another decade.

One thing that almost all of these scare mongers have in common, ultimate destruction is just a decade away. The only problem is, I have been having to listen to that kind of nonsense for over five decades now. And amazingly, not a single one of them has ever been right.

 

Why? As you've already said, climate scientists are well versed in sciences of all sorts. Which simply means they're lying to protect their incomes.

They somehow believe (no doubt because it pays the bills) that modeled data caries more weight than empirical experimentation.

And of course, it does. Because it pays the bills.

That's the only salient point in the physics denier world- it pays the bills.

 

Modeling is used extensively throughout science, including the natural sciences.

It's how the magnitude of collected empirical data may be handled.

If a climate scientist could refute current climate science, they would be famous throughout the world

 

The predictions made by EXXON have been right.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/exx...ew all they,climate change and global warming.

 

No. Modeling is useful in sciences and other endeavors.

But only a fool uses models without empirical validation.

Physics is empirically confirmed.

Physics denial is never empirically confirmed.

 

That's a mightly bold claim, good sir! ... claiming to know that not a single user on this forum is a scientist. Such WISDOM!

Thankfully, I'm not explaining anything to "climatologists" (there is no such thing). I am explaining it to YOU and to all others who read these posts.

 

Bingo. That way, the fear mongering remains imminent.

 

The question remains: Where is the additional thermal energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

Care to answer that question in a way that doesn't outright deny the very definition of temperature (and the 0th LoT)?

 

So, just wondering here.... How did we come up with the claim that last year was the "hottest" ever? Given that we empirically know that the temps globally historically have been significantly higher, how does this thread's claim hold up to actual scrutiny? Oh wait, it doesn't.

It's just another tired scare mongering exercise designed to produce investment in failing alternative energy development and worse, population control.

When we get to the heart of what AGW is actually trying to accomplish, the subjugation of the world populations, the seizing of power by the so very few who won't have to actually adhere to the ministrations of the AGW prescriptions, this is a staggeringly vicious power grab draped in a religious fervor of a global death cult.

And that folks, is all this thread is about.

 

Not only that, apparently many have forgotten that there were some strong cold records during the year also. This year had some amazing cold records broken, including -63c in Russia (-81f), a huge chunk of the west and midwest US being in subzero temperatures for weeks at the start of the year, as well as much of Asia.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/02/coldest-temperatures-record-asia-climate-change/

And much of Canada and the NE US was suffering from "frostquakes". Literally temperatures so cold that they froze a large amount of subsurface water that caused fracturing of the crust.

Yet, we are somehow supposed to have forgotten all of those record cold events that happened globally, and believe it was the hottest year ever?

That is why I have little real trust and confidence in so much of that reporting. Because it does defy logic, and I have to seriously question their methodology as the record lows were so much farther below normal temperatures than the highs were above normal temperatures. Now we did see some record highs, but in the range of 2 or 3 degrees F higher than previous highs. Meanwhile we also saw freaking record lows that were in the range of 30 degrees or more below average.

So exactly how does one make that kind of silly claim, without some massive manipulation of the data?

This is why I guess that so many find the claims confusing, that they forget that it is not even supposed to be "Global Warming" anymore, but "Climate Change". And that every single change in the climate no matter what is the fault of humans.

But I would love to see the creators of this report explain how the record breaking lows that lasted for almost two months and were significantly lower than any previous records on multiple continents was somehow offset by only fractional increases.

 

If you want to communicate with scientists, you need to go somewhere else.

But, your statements do not include anything that climatologists are not well aware of.

So, it's you against the world of climate science, with you choosing to NOT talk to scientists!

The reason you are here is that you hope there AREN'T scientists on this board.

 

Yes - heat is not spread evenly across our planet.

Yes, climate change is preferable, as "global warming" implies that every location is warming - which isn't true and was not what the inventor of the term meant. Plus, it is the change that is problematic. Humans have made serious investments in climatic conditions in all locations. Climate change is upsetting to that investment.

The increase in Earth's temperature are for the total of all locations over the entire year.

 

There might be some scientists right here on this forum. You have no idea what this forum's users do for a living or as a hobby. You are not omniscient.

Like I've already said before, these people who call themselves "climatologists" (there is no such thing) are aware of the laws that I mention, but they choose to ignore them (thus denying physics) in favor of their wacky religion that the Earth is somehow "magically" warming without any additional thermal energy.

Hahahahahaha nice try to isolate me. It didn't work. My question to you still stands.

According to your prior display of omniscience, there aren't any.

 

Ummmmmmmmm, according to the propaganda that the world is being spoon-fed about "global warming" (if one combines it, see my google search below), EVERYWHERE is supposedly "warming twice as fast as" EVERYWHERE ELSE.

https://www.google.com/search?q="warming+twice+as+fast+as"&oq="warming+twice+as+fast+as"&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDI5OTFqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

@Pieces of Malarkey -- This is yet another absurd claim of the Church of Global Warming to make note of and to then offer the conclusion: "WTF?!?!?! ... That's not even logically possible..."

The inventor of the term invented nothing more than a meaningless buzzword.

What "change" are you referring to? Your claims about this subject tend to be incredibly vague and otherwise meaningless.

Again, incredibly vague. What "serious investments"? What "climatic conditions"? Even in the locations that humans aren't present? How can a climate "change", exactly? There's no unit of measure for climate.

Are there thermometers in all locations?

Related question: Can ONE thermometer at 'X location' within West Virginia accurately measure the temperature of any given location within the entire State of West Virginia?

@Pieces of Malarkey --- Note his answer (or non-answer) to this particular question, whatever it may be.

 

You aren't going to change climate science by complaining on this board.

And no, you have no evidence of a conspiracy.

If you want to change climate science, you have to go somewhere else.

 

No, climate scientists are not suggesting that all regions of Earth's surface are warming by similar amounts.

In fact, they show that there are areas that are getting colder, at least for periods of time.

 

And here is something to really make people pause.

We are actually still in an Ice Age.

Now more and more often I see the definitions changed, but traditionally for geologists the boundary has been the Arctic Ice Cap. That is an aberration on the planet, and when it finally vanishes we will be out of our current ice age.

Now to give an idea how much that will affect us, it barely will. We as Homo Sapiens have not only lived through such an interglacial, we evolved in one two glacial cycles ago. But during the last interglacial, we had finally started to put holes in shells and wear them as jewelry. But we had yet to domesticate any animals, not even the dog or goat yet. That actually happened shortly after the peak of our current Ice Age. And it is even before the first crude rafts, we finally start to see evidence of humans not on Africa-Eurasia only during our current interglacial phase. A barrier no humans before resolved as none ever spread past those three conjoined continents.

We are less than 30,000 years from the last glacial peak, and geologists normally measure ice ages at the peaks between glacial cycles. And typically, the duration of time between a glacial cycle is roughly 70-90,000 years.

In other words, we are less than half way through our current cycle, and that is even if it was the shortest interglacial in geological record. We still have another 30-40,000 years of warming before the next ice age starts.

In all previous interglacials, there was no tundra or permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere. You had landscapes not unlike contemporary California or Virginia in Northern Alaska. And I have seen absolutely no evidence that claims this one should be any different.

Most people can barely imagine what life was like even 15 kya, when we still had massive glaciation covering much of North America. And no Great Lakes yet, they were still covered by ice. But we did have massive ice age lakes, like the ones that covered much of Montana and Utah. They are simply so small minded that they can not comprehend not only the changes Homo Sapiens have gone through in the past, but will go through again in the future.

 

@Pieces of Malarkey
@Mushroom

Notice how WillReadmore refuses to answer any and all questions that I ask him, because he cannot logically defend his physics-denying religion?

@WillReadmore I'll ask you the most pivotal of the questions again:

Can ONE thermometer at 'X location' within West Virginia accurately measure the temperature of any given location within the entire State of West Virginia?

Yes or no.

 

Or democrats setting fire to Hawaii so they can buy all the sea level property.