Ocean Heat Has Shattered Records for More Than a Year. What’s Happening?

Well, back on topic then, in the post I wrote (which you edited to remove portions that were on-topic), I wrote, "The climate is (IS) changed now, and yes, mankind has a significant role in that. So does the sun, volcanoes, fluctuating air currents, and about a half-dozen major concerns." Do I need to provide an enumeration of date, links, and summaries of bodies of research to rehash the factual nature of an inclusive statement like that?

Odd... I don't often see that kind of comprehensive, all-enveloping factual response in your own rejoinders and rebuttals....

Through negligence, everybody's 'goon-bureaucracy' (whether "MAGA" or 'woke') have brought us to this point. And while there's nothing (NOTHING) that anyone can do about volcanoes, the sun, and a laundry list of other natural phenomena, there's a lot that we, as a civilized species could do to manage the planet, its various populations, and its resources, far more intelligently. Now, do I need to provide you with an accumulation of more 'facts' than both of us already know in order to make that claim?

 

No, they continue to save human lives by the million, and those who seek to deprive us of them are guilty of megamurder.

No. We still need them and cannot phase them out safely until alternative energy sources are available at comparable cost -- which, however many lies are told to the contrary, they are not -- unless we want to kill millions.

Ahem. Indeed. As I have already explained to you, so very clearly and patiently, supply and demand for oil are both highly inelastic. That means a small increase in demand or decline in supply will raise prices more than proportionally. As supply is easier to control politically than demand, reducing supply by political fiat -- as is being done, at the insistence of the liars, fools and dupes who push the absurd, anti-scientific CO2 climate narrative -- is highly profitable to oil companies because inelastic demand means they enjoy higher profits despite lower production. So speaking of the gullible, it is YOU in the CO2 climate narrative propaganda campaign who are the oil companies' best friends.

 

Absolutely. We know how well the thumb on the academic scale has worked in economics for more than a century; the purveyors of the CO2 climate narrative are using the same playbook.

Even for those with tenure, it takes tremendous courage to defy La Carbonostra.

Use of terms like denialism, climate denier, etc. merely identify you as a smear artist seeking to silence scientific dissent.

Really? That's the best you can do?

Disgraceful.

No, that smear has been refuted many times. The documents that are alleged to support it do not even mention Soon's name, and there is no credible evidence that he had any input into them. The claims that he obtained funding from fossil fuel companies are just fabrications, smears, pure dishonesty.

 

I'm not talking about tornadoes. I'm talking about weather related events that cause loss of life and great displacement.

 

No. The IPCC ruthlessly suppresses all scientific evidence that any factor other than fossil fuel use -- and most especially the sun -- has any substantial effect on climate.

I have only found it breathtaking in its logical and scientific inadequacy, if not outright dishonesty.

And all their research is ultimately founded on the official surface temperature records -- NASA/NOAA, HadCrut, etc. -- which have been retroactively altered to conform to the CO2 climate narrative.

 

Not "everybody". You keep in binary terms. That's not "the middle".

There have been politicians on both sides that have been negligent. But stating that doesn't put somebody "in the middle". It's staying with FACTS that put somebody in the middle. FACTS like the fact is that those who have TRIED to do something about solving it have now been pushed away from the right.

Saying things that you think will make you look "independent" by all sides is NOT "being in the middle". It's demagoguery.

 

It is indisputable that thanks to our prolific use of safe, clean, abundant, cheap, and convenient fossil fuels, weather-related events are now causing proportionally far less loss of life and displacement than they did in any previous century of humanity's existence.

 

The post to which you replied, #108, was almost entirely about tornadoes. Sometimes memory of posts can be, er, faulty.

 

But Trump said climate scientists DON'T KNOW, and "it will be cooler tomorrow."

 

I see. So you assumed that the ONLY whether related events exacerbated by climate change and that cause loss of life and displacement were tornadoes. One day you might want to revise your assumptions.

 

I replied to your post. Any narrowness in the discussion was your contribution. There are no data to support a link between temperature trends and extreme weather of any kind.

 

Perhaps this insane belief accounts in part for climate change denial. "Building a structure seen from space" is a ridiculous metric for being significant. Though certainly our effects can be seen from space. Forests replaced with checkerboard farms, cities that are gray by day and bright by night. The way we have dramatically taken control of a majority of habitable land on the planet makes us the most significant biological player on earth today. Past major players have also made dramatic changes, most notably cyanobacteria for starting the oxygen-rich atmosphere we breath today. There is no doubt we have a major effect on our planet. The concerning part is we clearly don't fully understand our impact.

 

Well, now you know AGAIN... that I don't do "narrowness". I'm talking about the GLOBAL problem of GLOBAL warming. The minutia is in the science, charts, studies, papers... You can look at THAT if you're inclined to "narrowness". My job is to point out that Global Warming was predicted decades ago, that it IS happening now, and that the consequences are starting to become as dire as they were predicted back then.

 

And yet your post had a specific (narrow) focus. Moreover, as I have reminded you, your claim about consequences is without foundation in the data.

 

Well, practically speaking, you can read consistent results from the Gallup poll that suggest ~25% of our population considers itself to be "liberal" or "very liberal". And, about ~21% considers itself to be "conservative" or "very conservative". Where would you suggest that we who see 'good' and 'bad' in both archetypal 'camps' go?

Because I detest Biden and his 'woke' handlers, you automatically jump to the conclusion that I'm a "MAGA" -- but how 'factual' is your reasoning? You probably forgot it immediately, but just over a month ago, on April 21, in your thread called "Trump is a bad person. Why would anybody vote for him?", my Post #570 was an eight paragraph-long excoriation of Trump!

In that same thread, in my Post #575, I stated, "Just to be very clear, please understand that I do not advocate that Trump should be allowed to escape justice if he is found guilty of committing or having committed any crimes!" Does that sound like a "MAGA" to you?! But in that same thread, in your Post #553, you accused me of being "vague" while saying that "I (meaning yourself) have never been a Biden fan" -- and yet every position you advocate and defend reads as though it had been constructed by 'wokesters' in one of Biden's handlers' meetings.

You seem so sure you know exactly what an 'unaffiliated Independent' is -- but you don't define what that is FACTUALLY... and by now we know how very important you consider that necessary step to be! After all, your famous signature line makes it clear: "I do my research. I don't do yours." Then, at some point maybe you'll be good enough to start a new thread and tell us what your research suggests to you what an 'unaffiliated Independent' is. One cannot help but assume that you'll have found it to be strikingly similar to a 'woke', liberal Democrat!

 

So, as I suspected, to you "being in the middle" simply means not being a liberal or a conservative.

Proudly, I'm never in the middle. Historically, sometimes conservatives have been right, and sometimes liberals have been. The problem right now is that the Party of Trump has pushed too far to the extreme. But one day it will correct.

But my point is made. Being independent is NOT about not taking a position (or about opposing everything). It's about following the facts. Clearly you don't do that. So you are not in the middle. You are simply in the most extremist of BOTH extremes. And extremist positions are almost always wrong. So you are destined to be on the wrong side of every issue.

 

And my job is to point out that there is no credible empirical evidence to support such claims. The modest, mainly natural warming that has occurred since the mid-20th century cooling has been entirely benign, and the anthropogenic CO2 that has purportedly -- but not actually -- caused it has had broadly beneficial effects on the biosphere and humanity.

 

Oh, but FACTS, Golem... I thought you were going to root your conclusions in FACTS. I see a lot of 'vague' supposition and clumsy, unconvincing attempts to tell what an unaffiliated Independent is not (in your subjective opinion). Where's your much-vaunted research on this topic? Or do you just 'know' these things to be true...?

Ha! So, back to the thread topic, because at least there ARE bodies of scientifically-rooted research we can use to explore our points of view there.

And, perhaps we may at least agree that neither volcanoes, nor the sun, are 'political'.... .

 

that is too funny, using the tactic of Democrat voters against themselves

 

Every year breaking global world temperatures records sounds pretty empirical to me....

 

Oh, really? It actually sounds to me more like something you made up. Thanks to El Nino, the Tonga volcano, and exceptionally high solar activity (i.e., nothing to do with CO2), 2023 broke records -- that only plausibly go back to the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, and may realistically only go back a paltry 50 years, to the end of the mid-20th century cooling phase. Before that, 2016 did. Before that, it was 1998. That's not "every year," is it? It's not even close.

And in point of fact, we don't actually know for sure how global temperatures today stack up to temperatures just 80-90 years ago, because back then the instrumentation was so shaky and coverage so spotty outside a handful of economically advanced countries. What we do know is that arctic sea ice extent is now comparable to what it was 80 years ago, and may even be greater today. What we also know is that the people entrusted with maintaining honest, objective global surface temperature records have been going back and retroactively altering the data to conform to the CO2 climate narrative.

So claiming that "every year is breaking global temperature records" doesn't strike me as very empirical at all. It actually strikes me as more of a fabrication.

 

Well…..it’s possible walking to the store may use more fossil fuels than driving. Depends on what groceries are being purchased and what kind of car is being driven.

 

Yeah the huffing and puffing dragging the groceries home may produce more CO2 lols!

 

Do us a favour and count the rabbits while you are down that hole

But if you like you can try to explain exactly how the “suppress the research” lols!

 

Correct. Walking often uses more fossil fuels and emits more CO2 than driving.

The average person burns 100 Calories walking a mile. That’s 400 BTU. It takes between 7 and 10 Calories of fossil fuel to produce a Calorie of food (depending on the food) the average American eats. So we multiply 400 BTU by a factor of 7-10 to find how many BTU of fossil fuels it takes to walk a mile. We get 2800-4000 BTU of fossil fuel to walk a mile.

Driving the average car uses about 3500 BTU of fossil fuel per passenger mile. So yes, walking to the store and home with your groceries may very well produce more total CO2 emissions than driving.

I’m amused that people believe walking doesn’t require energy. Or they don’t know where that energy comes from.

The most amusing part is that I’ll bet no climate nutter even ever considered these facts….too much being told what to think and not enough time thinking.