2023 Was the worlds warmest year on record by far

It looks like you have yet to understand the premise of your own thread. AGW is in reference to global warming caused by human activity. It sounds to me like you don't want to give up any luxuries and want everyone else to do the heavy lefting, if not, then why wouldn't you embrace all forms of lowering it?

 

It does not appear that your position is one of genuine concern for the environment.

 

Can you clarify your point?

 

Based on that "logic," humans can't start forest fires. Forest fires existed before humans, therefore humans can't cause them. They also can't make holes in the ground. Holes in the ground existed before humans.

We have empirical evidence that humans are responsible for the current warming trend. "But thing happen before," isn't an argument.

 

Oh... it's fine to not drink from plastic containers, if it makes you feel better. It could definitely help your local environment. But individuals giving up luxuries is not going to put much of a dent on the problem raised by AGW. The ONLY one thing you can do that will REALLY be effective to deal with AGW is to vote for people who are serious about dealing with it.

So if your post is not hypocritical, I'm sure that's what you'll do.

 

No, you don't have empirical evidence of anything. Just a lot of computer models of questionable accuracy and a global cabal of elites blaming humans for literally everything.

Truth is, you've got nothing.

 

Every time science denialists think they can make a point based on logic, it blows up in their face. One would think there HAS to be a point in which they become so frustrated that they might one day consider doing REAL research before posting, instead of just repeating the talking points they read on the wingnut media that has let them down so many times.

But no... they just keep coming for more.

It's so odd to me... Maybe it has to do with some sort of masochist tendency, or something. I just don't know... Maybe somebody knows of some literature on the subject, that relates to being a right winger and drawing pleasure from being proven wrong again and again...

I say this with all due respect. My interest is purely academic.

 

I certainly wouldn't know if there's some of that literature out there. I suspect it would require actually being proven wrong at some point.

 

A few minutes of research would have told you that you are wrong. Hell, they make children's science experiments kits that explain this concept. I can mail you one if you would like.

 

The truth is that we can talk about the evidence if you want. But you do not want.

 

There's a whole "Environment and Conservation" forum on this board where rational people discuss it all the time.

That's all the discussion I need.

 

Cool. So you can't talk about evidence here. Got it.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, you can talk all you want about your evidence here.

If I see anything interesting I'll let you know.

 

Well, we have the whole thing about nighttime temperatures rising faster than daytime temperatures and winter temperatures rising faster than summer temperatures, and also temperatures in the lower atmosphere rising faster than upper atmosphere, all of which points to the greenhouse effect being the culprit and not the sun. And, hell, temps have risen regardless of solar output. We know it isn't the sun. We know it is the greenhouse effect. We can even look at the wavelengths being reflected to figure out the major atmospheric causes . . . which shows it is due largely to CO2. And we can determine whether that CO2 is natural or due to fossil fuel burning by looking at the isotopes. We've done all of this. The current warming is due to greenhouse gasses from humans.

 

OK. So where does the additional thermal energy needed to warm the atmosphere come from?

 

It isn't "additional" thermal energy. It's just trapped thermal energy. I can send you a children's science experiment kit that explains this very easily if you wish.

 

So you've moved on from violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to the "warm comfy blanket" theory.

A violation of Stefan-Boltzmann which says radiance and temperature always move in the same direction. In other words, you can't have an increase in temperature with a decrease in radiance.

Care to try again?

 

Nothing here violates said law, and you would know that if you had spent a couple of seconds learning it.

Wait . . . you are seriously claiming that there are people on this forum so braindead that they don't understand that the greenhouse effect is real? Frankly, I don't think anyone is that dumb. You could lobotomize a pet rock and put googly eyes on it and it still wouldn't be that dumb.

 

So you don't know. That's what I figured.

Thanks. I don't need to hear more.

 

I appreciate your confession that you won't read the post you quoted or any previous quote on the thread. You "don't need to hear more" because, by your own admission, you don't care about evidence.

 

There are ways of reducing the methane produced by livestock. Also

https://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/kangaroos-the-solution-to-lingering-livestock-gas-challenge

Mind you can’t eat ‘roo meat myself as every time I go to chow down in the back of my mind I hear the theme song for “Skippy the bush kangaroo” on

 

yep! I have hit people who do not seem to understand the basics but try to use a dunning Kruger effect to convince others that they do

 

Hmmmmm

you mean??

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topic...Stefan–Boltzmann,radiation as the Earth warms.

 

That is the point scientists are making because THEY do not want to give up “luxuries”. With the caveat that “luxuries” do not include things like polluting the planet we all live on. The point is to work out a way to both have the cake and eat it

 

ROFL did you see the reports of the LOW temps that are about to hit?

Tell me what is the proper average temperature for the planet.