This was the hottest summer ever recorded on Earth

Sep 8, 2023
1
1
10
The facts speak for themselves, the alarms are sounding. Will it change society's behavior? Interesting those who cheer the rise of the stock market, growth, and development but ignore climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cecilia fx
Feb 2, 2023
3
2
15
If you include the medieval optimum as part of recorded history, then this article is incorrect.
Depending on your data collection qualification, the 1930's might even make it incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Observer_2020
Sep 8, 2023
4
1
15
So, the planet is 5 billion years old, the thermometer was invented in the mid 1800's . That means we have been recording temperatures for less than two hundred years. Put that into context. I wouldn't put much faith in the "climate change" hysteria until "science" can have a debate between all the theorists which includes the ones the mainstream "science" censors. There are far worse problems facing the planet other than "climate change". Deforestation, draining of wetlands, extinction of species, garbage, chemical pollution, industrial and artisanal mining for cobalt, etc... are far more of a threat than CO2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tommy1948
Sep 8, 2023
1
2
15
Pseudoscience deniers surely? Which point and or data set would you like to discuss/argue? How about 50% of data used in the modelling software is estimated? Remember, modelling software is programmed by humans who have leanings.
How about measuring stations and their locations being changed over the many years how is that going to produce consistent and coherent data? How about the sparsity of measuring stations in Africa, Antarctica and most of the southern hemisphere? How about the greening of desert regions due to increased CO2? Another point for discussion would be with regard to the adjusting (tampering with) raw data to suit the modelling software?
If I had messed around with data like the climate modeler's have, during my under graduate (Science) research days (many years ago) I would have been thrown off my course. Climate science today is a misnomer for research that supports the desired narrative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 8, 2023
4
1
15
Aren't we in the late stages of the Holocene warming period? Interglacial periods are short lived. I would be more concerned about the return of the Pleistocene ice age. On top of that we should be stopping the other technologies from science that are driving disasters like deforestation, overfishing, over population, pollution, strip mining for rare earth mineral, etc.....

No one is denying science nor climate change, the latter which has been happening for millions and billions of years. I'm just pointing out that contradicting science is being censored and debating other theories and "models" are not allowed. Isn't science supposed to be open to all theories and ideas? Or has it become narrowly focused and political? If the latter ts the case then some of the science has become junk.
 
Last edited:

SHaines

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 12, 2019
70
93
4,630
People can make decisions with little to no understanding of a topic, but to make informed decisions does require additional context.

For example, being confident that if the planet once existed as a ball of heated metal floating in space, doesn't mean that many billions of years later the entities living on that planet couldn't make choices that do harm to themselves.

The concern about our climate isn't that every day on the calendar is always hotter than any previous year. To imply that's how easy it is for your average person to "know" anything about climate change is simply false. The issue is that most folks, myself included, haven't spent many years studying the science behind the topic, so we all just make our decision based on what we hear from others.

In some cases, folks will listen to scientists who have done all those many years of studying to have real insight into the underlying causes, while others will decide the whole topic is a conspiracy to vaguely consolidate power for illicit purposes.

This is a forum for the discussion of the sciences, not for the promotion of conspiracy theories or science denial, so we'll want to keep on topic and avoid just hurling insults at people who stay on topic.
 
Last edited:

SHaines

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 12, 2019
70
93
4,630
If you include the medieval optimum as part of recorded history, then this article is incorrect.
Depending on your data collection qualification, the 1930's might even make it incorrect.
Can you provide more context for these sentences? What specific information are you hoping to convey?
 

SHaines

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 12, 2019
70
93
4,630
Pseudoscience deniers surely? Which point and or data set would you like to discuss/argue? How about 50% of data used in the modelling software is estimated? Remember, modelling software is programmed by humans who have leanings.
How about measuring stations and their locations being changed over the many years how is that going to produce consistent and coherent data? How about the sparsity of measuring stations in Africa, Antarctica and most of the southern hemisphere? How about the greening of desert regions due to increased CO2? Another point for discussion would be with regard to the adjusting (tampering with) raw data to suit the modelling software?
If I had messed around with data like the climate modeler's have, during my under graduate (Science) research days (many years ago) I would have been thrown off my course. Climate science today is a misnomer for research that supports the desired narrative.
Can you provide reputable sources to support your numbers? It's important for folks to have context when they need to parse data like this, so being able to see where specific data is coming from is vital to the process of learning.

Scientists always make their best guess based on all available data and use models that determine how the existing data would fit into the areas of the topic that don't have good data. It's how it works with all science, so it's odd that this particular branch of science is so frequently subjected to moving goal posts.
 
Sep 8, 2023
4
1
15
People can make decisions with little to know understanding of a topic, but to make informed decisions does require additional context.

For example, being confident that if the planet once existed as a ball of heated metal floating in space, doesn't mean that many billions of years later the entities living on that planet couldn't make choices that do harm to themselves.

The concern about our climate isn't that every day on the calendar is always hotter than any previous year. To imply that's how easy it is for your average person to "know" anything about climate change is simply false. The issue is that most folks, myself included, haven't spent many years studying the science behind the topic, so we all just make our decision based on what we hear from others.

In some cases, folks will listen to scientists who have done all those many years of studying to have real insight into the underlying causes, while others will decide the whole topic is a conspiracy to vaguely consolidate power for illicit purposes.

This is a forum for the discussion of the sciences, not for the promotion of conspiracy theories or science denial, so we'll want to keep on topic and avoid just hurling insults at people who stay on topic.
To truly be "informed" and to make the sound decisions, all viable science needs to be considered. That would be real "context". Didn't plant and other non fungal/ bacterial life start on this planet when atmospheric co2 was around 5000 ppm? Can plants survive let alone thrive under 200 ppm?

Yes we need to reduce CO2. Can we do it at the expense of strip mining heavy metals on lands that are traditional forests? We still haven't addressed the ecological damage, the pollution and human suffering that come with strip mining for rare earth minerals. Not to mention the huge amounts of carbon energy it takes to produce and store "green energy" Add those factors then there is truly a zero net gain.

Perennial plants, Trees and forests are the best method of mitigation for CO2. We need those forests and plants to balance the carbon. Then there is industrial agriculture's and urban growth's along with industrial growth's impact on the forests and land by clearing for food production and paving land for urban and industry. Being the president of our local resource conservation district we have written and set up many carbon farm plans, native species restoration, wetlands restoration, forest management, soils health plans, erosion control, cover cropping, water conservation and we are implementing more. RCD's are also working hard to mitigate the urban encroachment on the few small farms that and open space that are in danger of development
The municipalities are also draining wetlands that are carbon sponges for more urban growth. We should be restoring wetlands. Then you have developing countries that have replaced burning charcoal with propane or butanes. Take that away and they go back to burning forests for charcoal. We should be planting more trees instead of enacting policies that cause the removal of trees.

The problem is complex, the solutions are difficult and can't be solved with narrowly focused strategies like cobalt blood batteries, charging stations, solar, and wind. They are only partial solutions. And Nuclear seems to be the third rail so that is out. Developing and develpoed nations would need an infinitude of electric infrastructure to move away from burning to produce energy. And, without nuclear we wouldn't' be able to supply enough energy for said infrastructure.

If we cold turkey hydrocarbon energy people in developed nations would have to make huge lifestyle sacrifices and developing nations would go back to carving up nature to eat, heat and cook. A balance of hydrocarbon use and clean technological advances along with CO2 mitigation plantings of Carbon consuming flora wold be the common sense approach towards a carbon neutral world. That is out to because science has become to politicized on Both sides of the paradigm. . A double edged sword indeed.
 
Sep 6, 2020
331
36
4,730
Pseudoscience deniers surely? Which point and or data set would you like to discuss/argue? How about 50% of data used in the modelling software is estimated? Remember, modelling software is programmed by humans who have leanings..

Feel free to review the 1990 inc. 1992 addendum and their predictions for the future - We have a report dated at the time and we have the information available to review its accuracy.

We do have to be mindful that in 1990 I was in awe of a 512k Amiga in the house which wouldnt even hold an amateur created App now, so research computing has improved massively for calculation purposes.
 
Sep 8, 2023
4
1
15
When science becomes narrow and political by censoring contradicting theories and other historical data, it becomes junk. So you base your point on how many years of human records on a planet that is 5 billion years old? How do you explain ancient forests that are over two thousand years old being found under receding glaciers or forests that have been submerged for tens of thousands of years. Something warmed the planet long before 440 dodge Hemis were around. Based on the long history of the planet and "science" we should be more concerned about a pending return of an ice age.
 
Nov 16, 2023
1
0
10
Innervex JewelSys enables you to manage your Jewellery business with greater cost control, and offers the most comprehensive set of processes to run your Jewellery business, end-to-end, no matter where you would like to begin and easy to use windows and web-based ERP software. It offers a comprehensive solution in Retail, wholesale, accounting and manufacturing process needs of jewellers.