I'm 100% sure if I toss you out of a helicopter at 10,000 feet, it'll kill you.
Prove me wrong.
2024 Sea Surface Temperature exceed previous records by wide margin
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
Prove me wrong.
Let's toss you out, and find out.
No parachute.
We cannot be certain until we try.
Did the fed assigned to you by the agency give you a new talking point?
I imagine they’re pretty embarrassed by the garbage you have been spewing so why not try a flat earth/gravity distraction? 🤡
The guy is a "chemical engineer" and denies that the ocean is a carbon sink in his very first sentence at your 16:20 mark. That's denying basic science. That process isn't even remotely debatable. It's like claiming that salt won't dissolve in the ocean. It's patently idiotic. CO2 dissolves in water. Period. Phytoplankton use CO2 for photosynthesis pulling in more CO2. Does he claim photosynthesis isn't real?
For your edification:
For eons, the world’s oceans have been sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and releasing it again in a steady inhale and exhale. The ocean takes up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis by plant-like organisms (phytoplankton), as well as by simple chemistry: carbon dioxide dissolves in water. It reacts with seawater, creating carbonic acid. Carbonic acid releases hydrogen ions, which combine with carbonate in seawater to form bicarbonate, a form of carbon that doesn’t escape the ocean easily.
BTW, I just went back and watched again - your "chemical engineer" said the only place where CO2 is increasing in the water is at Mauna Loa. Ummm...WTAF? Mauna Loa is a volcanic mountain in Hawaii. It's where they measure atmospheric CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory. They don't monitor oceanic CO2 there...the observatory is over 11,000 feet above sea level, so...you know.
I realize you "just heard about this guy" but my suggestion would be to vet your source before presenting him as an authority on anything. Literally within 20 seconds, he discredits himself completely.
Last edited:
Yes it is. The hockey stick graph shows an exponential rise in temps. Without this exponential predicted rise, there wouldn't be any support for the climate agenda.
All the climate fear is around the predictions. The report does not claim things are horrible now, it claims things might be horrible in the future. The entire agenda is based on predictions, not current data.
I didn't think you would appreciate his "science". 😉
Like I said, I have not vetted this research. But he also addresses the faulty temperature data. This data is a real problem and it is contributing to inaccurate data.
There are a lot of weather stations that are not reporting good data, but instead of removing them or making it better, the scientists manipulate the temps and average it out with other stations.
This is a big concern for me. The historical ocean data was known to be very inconsistent, so they change the numbers so they can compare it to today's data.
I don't think you are necessarily wrong, I just don't think we have enough information to come to the conclusions we have made.
Weeelllll...his "science" is horseshit. This guy seriously believes we can tree-plant our way out of this.
You don't need to vet his research. He's flatly wrong right out of the gate. The temperature data is not "faulty" because he says it is...he doesn't even understand that CO2 dissolves into water so taking his word on anything is a fool's errand. There are thousands of monitoring stations. Some of them, by necessity, must be located in less-than-ideal locations...too near buildings or too near a tree line or some other anomaly. Those readings will be affected by their locations. How they are affected is...read this carefully...well understood. The adjustments they make to that data have been reviewed, reviewed again, and re-reviewed. It is all available in multiple peer-reviewed journals. Saying it's faulty requires that you demonstrate their methods are incorrect...you have to prove their adjustments result in incorrect outcomes. Just saying it's so? Horseshit.
And once again, saying the historical data is inconsistent means absolutely not one thing. Inconsistent historical data will come with error bars showing the range of uncertainty. When modern data outstrips even the most extreme historical numbers, you can't dismiss that modern data by claiming we don't know what it was like back then. YOU must demonstrate that the historical data is wrong. YOU must demonstrate that the modern data lies within the boundaries of those past numbers. Those historical reconstructions have been published and critiqued and reviewed many times. You just saying it's wrong...🐴💩
I'm giving you credit - rightly or wrongly - for being sincere. But you clearly don't comprehend how basic science works.
I believe you have bought in to the narrative full force. You think the science is settled and you believe everyone else who does not agree with you is wrong. It is clear that you will not review anything I say with an open mind.
I have reviewed lots of data and I don't see it as being clear cut as you think it is. The ipcc even alludes to this in their report.
I encourage you to learn about stuff outside what the mainstream is presenting. You might be surprised that some of it makes sense.
Unless someone digs a giant hole, and puts several hundred billion tons of the dead trees in it, then fills it over with dirt again....
Trees won't take the carbon out of the terrestrial carbon cycle; only if that carbon is sequestered, like it was before we dug it up, pumped it out and burned it.
If I posted a Youtube video of a person asserting that the Earth is a flat plate does that mean the science isn't settled? Would you lend ANY credence to anything they said after that?
You said to start at 16:20 so I did. He immediately stated things that are categorically false. Don't believe me? Find a citation from any reputable source - I'll even take one from WattsUp - that says CO2 doesn't dissolve in water and phytoplankton don't use CO2 in photosynthesis. Just one. Find a source that says the Mauna Loa Observatory monitors - from 11,000 feet above sea level - the CO2 concentration in the ocean.
Watching Youtube videos isn't "reviewing data". And you'll have to cite the IPCC where they say the ocean isn't a sink for CO2. I'll wait.
I'll look at any "stuff" that isn't outright false. Lies don't make sense in my world...maybe in yours?
No I would not, but I get what you are saying.
I have the same feeling about the climate change agenda as you do about the information from my sources. This agenda is being pushed and funded by the global elite like Bill Gates, Rockefeller foundation, Bezos foundation. These people have been primary leaders and funders of the sustainable development goals (which climate change is a part of). These private NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) are funding the climate change research (obvious bias). They have also funded trans research, creating covid through gain of function research, the covid vaccine, and helped cover up the origins of covid. They have funded the illegal immigration crisis we are currently in. I feel the exact same way as you do about not lending ANY credence to anything they say. Including climate change.
Climate Change Grants for Nonprofits | Inside Philanthropy
Discover grants for climate change, grants for climate change research, and climate change education here at IP. We also explore renewable energy and climate justice funders.
www.insidephilanthropy.com
I said to start at 16:30 because he was talking about the sea changes. I know I listened to
I have done my fair share of lit reviews as well. But not too many people on here will take the time to read a journal article. Most people are willing to listen to a couple minute video though. To be fair though, youtube has a lot of legitimate information as well as trash. I see interns watching youtube videos prior to performing a procedure on a regular basis.
A lot of times the minority opinion is viewed as wrong. It can take a long time to prove a theory before it is widely accepted as facts.
What I know is that the people pushing the climate change agenda have a lot to gain if they can keep people believing. Look at how many people have turned on Biden after realizing he is intentionally allowing open borders. Do you think anyone would support the mainstream dems if they also realized that they lied about climate change, covid, ukraine, and isreal? The power of the globalist depends on keeping the narrative alive.
@tarheelbybirth
I used to believe the information that I was fed by the mainstream, but then I started seeking the truth. I stumbled upon what seems to be a massive conspiracy by the globalists. But its real life, not a conspiracy.
Look into the Sustainable development goals and who is funding it and promoting it. Look into who is funding the research for climate change. Do you think its a coincidence that the same NGOs are funding all of the important political topics of the last 10 years and they are all on the same side of every topic?
There are bigger forces at play that just the legit science. This I can say with 100% certainty.
I used to believe the information that I was fed by the mainstream, but then I started seeking the truth. I stumbled upon what seems to be a massive conspiracy by the globalists. But its real life, not a conspiracy.
Look into the Sustainable development goals and who is funding it and promoting it. Look into who is funding the research for climate change. Do you think its a coincidence that the same NGOs are funding all of the important political topics of the last 10 years and they are all on the same side of every topic?
There are bigger forces at play that just the legit science. This I can say with 100% certainty.
*sigh* you read the literature, yet you bash people who have not one thing to do with the research you claim to have read. This is a clear indication that you are not serious. If your "global elite" is wrong, why the fvck do you care how they spend their money. If they're right...No I would not, but I get what you are saying.
I have the same feeling about the climate change agenda as you do about the information from my sources. This agenda is being pushed and funded by the global elite like Bill Gates, Rockefeller foundation, Bezos foundation. These people have been primary leaders and funders of the sustainable development goals (which climate change is a part of). These private NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) are funding the climate change research (obvious bias). They have also funded trans research, creating covid through gain of function research, the covid vaccine, and helped cover up the origins of covid. They have funded the illegal immigration crisis we are currently in. I feel the exact same way as you do about not lending ANY credence to anything they say. Including climate change.
Climate Change Grants for Nonprofits | Inside Philanthropy
Discover grants for climate change, grants for climate change research, and climate change education here at IP. We also explore renewable energy and climate justice funders.
I said to start at 16:30 because he was talking about the sea changes. I know I listened to
I have done my fair share of lit reviews as well. But not too many people on here will take the time to read a journal article. Most people are willing to listen to a couple minute video though. To be fair though, youtube has a lot of legitimate information as well as trash. I see interns watching youtube videos prior to performing a procedure on a regular basis.
A lot of times the minority opinion is viewed as wrong. It can take a long time to prove a theory before it is widely accepted as facts.
What I know is that the people pushing the climate change agenda have a lot to gain if they can keep people believing. Look at how many people have turned on Biden after realizing he is intentionally allowing open borders. Do you think anyone would support the mainstream dems if they also realized that they lied about climate change, covid, ukraine, and isreal? The power of the globalist depends on keeping the narrative alive.
See, you keep saying the science on CO2 and warming isn't settled (it is but that's beside the point). The truth is you just won't believe it regardless of the evidence because you don't like the people associated with it. The truth is you don't really have a clue what you're talking about and have absolutely no interest in learning anything.
BTW, a group of climate skeptics investigated Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph. Dr. Richard Muller ran the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in an attempt to prove the temperature reconstructions were wrong. Here's what Muller said at the conclusion of his work - funded, in part, by the Koch brothers:
"Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
They employed their own methods to analyze the data independent of the methods used by Mann. They arrived at the same result. Uber denier Anthony Watt was so sure they would disprove Mann's work that he vowed to support their conclusion no matter the outcome. When faced with the truth delivered by a group he claimed to trust, Watt reneged on his pledge. That's the company you keep. You’re so sold on your personal agenda that, unlike Dr. Muller, you’ll never acknowledge you’re just wrong.
Oh...and you're a serious conspiracy nut. If you claim the Koch's are part of some global cabal in league with Gates and Bezos, you're borderline insane.
Last edited:
YOU "have a feeling"
HE points out specifics in your sources that are categorically FALSE.
This seems to be a topic well above your pay grade, Cletus.
Just for the record, the planet is warming and, as former skeptic Dr. Muller said, "Humans are almost entirely the cause". The debate is over on that point. Period.
Your problem seems to be that there are wealthy people and "NGOs" that accept that and are working to either mitigate it, profit off trying to mitigate it, or both. And SOMEHOW, because they are involved, what is categorically true MUST be false in your "view".
Your stance has not one thing to do with the science - you cite none despite requests to do so. Your view is based solely on the personalities and organizations involved. You regard them as bad so whatever they work on must be false. That's why the actual science will never move you.
A normal person recognizes that as batshit crazy.
Here is an link that discusses why CO2 is air temperatures are not the cause of global warming.
This article discusses the importance of wetlands and forests in regulating the climate. Humans influence temperatures in the landscape by their changes in water and vegetation management, much more than the standard system of air temperature measurement records. The IPCC reports (2007 & 2013) do not take into account this direct effect of water and vegetation on climate. Global warming is explained to policymakers as being due to the increase of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. Changes in ecosystems such as wetland drainage and deforestation have reduced precipitation and evapotranspiration which have increased drainage and temperature and thus leading to the destruction of the water cycle.
Open the article through the zenodo.org link.
1. Urbanization has lead to increased destruction of wetlands and forests.
2. Destruction of wetlands and forests have led to a decrease in evapotranspiration
3. Urbanization and farming has led to increased drainage from the environment and into large bodies of water.
4. Groundwater levels are declining rapidly, this is evidence that we are disrupting the water cycle by shunting water into large rivers, lakes, or oceans as quick as possible without giving it a chance to soak into the ground.
5. A decrease in evapotranspiration has led to less cloud production
6. less clouds lead to higher surface temperatures
Wetlands directly influence the microclimate, the local and regional climate through the process of evapotranspiration. Wet vegetation, transforms (dissipates) solar radiation into the latent heat of water vapour. Solar energy binds in wetlands through plants and water into water vapour. In this way, temperature and air pressure differences and hence air velocity are compensated for in time and space. Evapotranspiration converts many times more energy than photosynthesis. Water and plants are the main regulators of the solar energy flows in the landscape, thus playing an irreplaceable role in climate; for these reasons, our chapter focuses upon the direct function of wetlands and the air-conditioning effect of evapotranspiration
Population growth has been mentioned as an underlying force of wetland conversion in 63 out of the 105 case studies (Figure 5), particularly driving wetland conversion by settlement expansion, industrial development, infrastructure construction and agricultural development
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081292#pone-0081292-t003
2. Destruction of wetlands and forests have led to a decrease in evapotranspiration
3. Urbanization and farming has led to increased drainage from the environment and into large bodies of water.
4. Groundwater levels are declining rapidly, this is evidence that we are disrupting the water cycle by shunting water into large rivers, lakes, or oceans as quick as possible without giving it a chance to soak into the ground.
5. A decrease in evapotranspiration has led to less cloud production
6. less clouds lead to higher surface temperatures
Wetlands directly influence the microclimate, the local and regional climate through the process of evapotranspiration. Wet vegetation, transforms (dissipates) solar radiation into the latent heat of water vapour. Solar energy binds in wetlands through plants and water into water vapour. In this way, temperature and air pressure differences and hence air velocity are compensated for in time and space. Evapotranspiration converts many times more energy than photosynthesis. Water and plants are the main regulators of the solar energy flows in the landscape, thus playing an irreplaceable role in climate; for these reasons, our chapter focuses upon the direct function of wetlands and the air-conditioning effect of evapotranspiration
Population growth has been mentioned as an underlying force of wetland conversion in 63 out of the 105 case studies (Figure 5), particularly driving wetland conversion by settlement expansion, industrial development, infrastructure construction and agricultural development
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081292#pone-0081292-t003
The IPCC report says, "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase over 2010–2019.
Do you think the surface air temp is what is causing the oceans to warm?
I remember when science told us that sunlight was bad for me, I should avoid fat in my diet, and fruit juice should be consumed in large quantities.
Yet now we're supposed to believe that global warning points to certain & utter destruction of the planet based on a handful of data points?
Sure thing, Jan.
Yet now we're supposed to believe that global warning points to certain & utter destruction of the planet based on a handful of data points?
Sure thing, Jan.
Ummm...what? That paper doesn't say anything of the kind...although I'm not entirely sure what your claim is since it seems garbled. They say:
...the permanent vegetation in these systems is an active factor that, through the process of evapotranspiration, directly influences climate as well.
Umm...yeah...that's not new information. And the effect would be on the local microclimate of the studied system, not the planet as a whole.
Oddly, your authors claim:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, however, do not take into account this direct effect of water and vegetation on climate.
That's odd since Chapters Two through Four of the Sixth Assessment are all about water and its effects - including evapotranspiration. The IPCC has also issued a Special Report that addresses "desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems".
Bottom line, if you think they're saying that anthropogenic CO2 isn't the primary driver of global warming, you really don't understand what you're reading.
He has no idea who Muller is (or anything about the BEST study, now ~15 yrs old).
Nor who Anthony Watts, is, who was a co-investigator on that project and had claimed he would go with wherever the data took them.
But once the data Muller processed indicated humans were causing nearly all of the warming, and the "urban heat island effects" that Watts claimed were the cause (but they weren't and Muller proved they had been correctly accounted for), Watts ran away and backtracked.
Watts was a liar from the beginning, and he did exactly what he had been accusing climate scientists of doing for years. Projection at it's "finest"....
Not bothering reading your nonsense.
CO2 has been understood as a greenhouse gas since Arrhenius discovered it in the 1800s.
Oil and gas industry knew it was going to raise global temperatures back in the 1970s, and there's a scientific paper from ~1910 predicting it as well.
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’ - CO2 Coalition
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America Published first at the Epoch Times By Kevin Stocklin 8/12/2023 Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation...
A report by Cornell University states that “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”
But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.
“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said. “And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”
The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said, “consensus is the business of politics.”
“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world,” Dr. Crichton said. “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”
Yet, you and your buddies cannot FIND anything that disagrees with the consensus data.Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’ - CO2 Coalition
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America Published first at the Epoch Times By Kevin Stocklin 8/12/2023 Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation...co2coalition.org
A report by Cornell University states that “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”
But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
1. A "physicist and a meteorologist" are not climatologists - prominent or otherwise. And Richard Lindzen has been kicked in the teeth so many times for his...let's call it a loose connection to reality?...that, figuratively, he looks like a West Virginia meth head.Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’ - CO2 Coalition
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America Published first at the Epoch Times By Kevin Stocklin 8/12/2023 Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation...
A report by Cornell University states that “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”
But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.
“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said. “And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”
The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said, “consensus is the business of politics.”
“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world,” Dr. Crichton said. “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”
2. “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.” Absolutely correct. And when those reproducible results - over and over and over again - conform to each other, scientists come to a consensus around those results. For the climate deniers to have ANY standing, they have to demonstrate, in a reproducible way, that the current consensus - which is based on reproducible results - is wrong. Let us all know when that happens.
Climate change; a hoax from the beginning.
The only ‘science’ these globalist clowns have is repeatedly claiming “99% OF THE WORLD’S SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THE THEORY OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!”
“I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
Frederick Seitz
Past President : National Academy of Sciences & American Physical Society
President Emeritus at Rockefeller University
The only ‘science’ these globalist clowns have is repeatedly claiming “99% OF THE WORLD’S SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THE THEORY OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!”
“I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
Frederick Seitz
Past President : National Academy of Sciences & American Physical Society
President Emeritus at Rockefeller University
So, he has nothing to refute the data.
Just an angry old man who wants to bitch about it.
Frederick Seitz, eh? I'll bet he had the same stance concerning that bullshit science that links cigarettes to lung cancer. He was both a paid lobbyist for and the principal scientific advisor to RJR's medical research program. Interestingly, when Alexander Holtzman of Phillip Morris approached Bill Hobbs of RJR about meeting with Dr. Seitz, Hobbs reportedly responded that Seitz was - and I quote - "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice".
Did I mention that Hobbs was with RJR and RJR was, at that time, paying Seitz to advise RJR's medical research program?
That was in 1989...seven years before Seitz offered his rant on the IPCC report.
In the '90's, Seitz was also a lead organizer of the Oregon Petition - urging the US to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The National Academy of Sciences - an organization that Seitz led decades earlier - issued a statement that read:
"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
In fact, upon scrutiny, it turned out that the vast majority of supposed scientists who signed the petition, either couldn't be verified or flatly denied ever signing it. There's more but I think that's enough, don't you?
So...who else ya' got?
Last edited:
Similar threads
