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

At the same time, every ice age, sans industry or human intervention, has been followed by warming, great increases to temperatures, ice melts, increased sea levels, increase in storm violence, great fires, loss of habitat, landscape changes from frozen to lush to desert, extinctions, etc. In point, murder isn't the cause of mortality. So even ending murder all together will do nothing to change our eventual demise. And there is no malice in industry or a camp fire. It is simply people trying to make due, no differently than a great white or croc taking what is provided. Yes, people can be greedy and reckless. And we should be good to Mother earth and our atmosphere. But there is no cure-all salve beyond the recognition that life and all the good in it, is in owing to the mercy of God.

 

This is the direction that this conversation generally goes once I point out and explain the fact that accurately measuring Earth's temperature with thermometers isn't feasible to do and requires a lot more to properly do than people think it does.

So, the next step is to make mention of "magic" "high technology" satellites than can "do anything". Well, no they can't. Sure, they can have a thermometer onboard, but onboard is not the Earth. Sure, they can measure relative temperature (e.g., "this area of water on Earth" is hotter/colder than "this other area of water on Earth"), but that's not the temperature of Earth either. There are limits to what satellites are capable of doing.

The main problem with satellites is with regard to this question: How much of the present light is the result of emission by Earth, and how much is the result of a reflection of something else, like sunlight, starlight, moonlight, etc.? IOW, satellites can't tell which light is 'emitted light' and which light is 'reflected light'... IOW, to measure Earth's temperature using light, one first needs to know Earth's emissivity, and to know Earth's emissivity, one first needs to know Earth's temperature. Thus, it's a circular problem. Earth's emissivity is unknown (as Earth's temperature is unknown).

Knowing Earth's temperature is not as easy as people make it out to be.

It actually doesn't work with that technology either. See my above explanation. Not even "magic satellites" are capable of measuring Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy.

What is "it"? Magic satellites? They aren't capable of measuring absolute temperature outside of any onboard thermometers (which is not Earth). They can do a good job of measuring relative temperatures though (see my above example of that).

That post is just referencing a bunch of made up numbers and fear mongering about them.

Correct. No application at all. Satellites cannot measure Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

Yup, temperatures do indeed go up and down all the time. It's nothing to worry about.

Correct. It's about a group of elites wanting more money from the plebs and more power over the plebs. "Business as usual".

The gender confusion movement is related to it but in a more indirect way. People who are confused about their gender are not only easier to manipulate, but are also not going to be reproducing (population reduction/control). That's a lot of what the Church of Perversion is all about.

It's also about getting people into such a poor state of mind that they become totally dependent upon others, and that they get manipulated into casting votes against their own interests (and instead for destructive interests that have been created FOR them to keep them "voting Democrat", such as abortion, LGBTQLMNOP+, genital mutilation, etc)

 

Slowing infrared radiation from departing Earth does not cause Earth to cool.

 

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas nor is it the most powerful greenhouse gas. It's prominence comes from the volume humans emit.

The change in the balance between arriving solar radiation and departing heat does not have to be significant to cause the change being measured.

Remember that the issue is small degree changes over many decades.

The main problem here is that your post is an editorial comment without posting either the original paper or the response by the authors of the original paper or the wider understanding of climatological scientists working on atmospheric chemistry.

Khmelinskii is a scientists who studies our atmosphere. As far as I can tell, he has specifically studied the eruption of Mt Pinatubo where he says:

I don't see other scientists in the field of atmospheric chemistry hanging onto this hypothesis that CO2 is a result of heating, not a cause of heating.

 

What do you suppose that the speed of light is being "slowed" down to? The speed of sound?

You're still denying the Stefan Boltzmann Law that I quite literally posted for you in my prior post. You're also denying basic mathematics (both sides of an equation MUST equal).

A reduction of Earth's radiance (which is what you're trying to propose) necessarily means a reduction of Earth's temperature. Both sides of an equation MUST equal.

 

That's like saying that at night when you pull a blanket over you, you get cooler.

 

You DO understand don’t you that stats are the bedrock of quantitive science?

 

Since when?

Experimentation is the bedrock of all legitimate sciences.

 

Translation

“We are sick of idiots who don’t understand basic science trying to muddy the waters.

Further point IF true this is ONE journal - lots more out there and what has a rehash of the same old same old junk got to do with the OP?

 

Ummmm are you unaware that there are different methodologies in science? Two main divisions are quantitive and qualitative research

 

What has this to do with the OP?

 

There is a substantial peer-reviewed literature making that case.

 

The OP claims CO2 attribution for the heating.

 

The OP claims CO2 attribution for the heating.

 

Peer review doesn't necessarily validate conclusions drawn. For instance, it would be improper for a reviewer to compare findings to other research.

But, more importantly I see no indication that the hypothesis in question is supported by the vast majority of climatologists, including those who study the atmosphere.

This is a well known hypothesis that has included ancient air samples from ice cores, providing data over geologic time. It is NOT the result of new data.

 

Science is not a democracy.

 

So? And the OP is about the increasing global temperature with a brief mention re “consistent with” increasing carbon

 

Without the CO2 attribution there's no basis to reduce fossil fuel use in response to heating.

 

We have never claimed it is - try addressing the science please

 

Did the OP mention that?

 

Yes, and are you aware of how unreliable statistics and therefore, models, are at a planetary scale of degrees of freedom?

 

Feel free to back that statement with citations

 

The post to which I was replying, #40, included this claim:
"I see no indication that the hypothesis in question is supported by the vast majority of climatologists . . . "
I suggest you take your concern up with that poster.

 

As requested.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

Yes.

• "The rising frequency and intensity of heat waves across the globe is consistent with the consequences of carbon pollution — mainly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas."