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

My point is confirmed by the fact that science denialists refer to Science as "catechism".

 

Translation: climate change denialists can no longer deny what's happening due to the overwhelming data the world's actual climate scientists have revealed. So the former are trying to create causal doubt.

 

Except, apparently, how to remove them from the temperature record, as NASA/NOAA has done with the mid-20th century cooling phase (because it coincided with rapidly increasing CO2) and Michael "Piltdown" Mann did with the Little Ice Age....

<yawn> I'm not the one who denies there was ever any global Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. You are. I'm not the one who denies that adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air has no significant effect on its infrared absorption properties, a fact that can be confirmed by any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab. You are. I'm not the one who denies that arctic sea ice extent was the same 80 years ago as today. You are. I'm not the one who denies that the climate-related death rate plunged by an order of magnitude in the same 20th-century period when temperatures rose. You are.

The real science denialists are the people who deny indisputable scientific facts that disprove the CO2 climate narrative, and I will thank you to remember it.

You claimed to, but did not.

That doesn't say what you claim it says.

Because the consensus opinion is not what you claim it is.

As I have already proved to you, the oil companies are the ones who are profiting most from the political suppression of oil supply. Have you priced a gallon of gas recently? Hello?

 

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. Many respected scientists have stated that CO2 is at most a minor contributor to the post-Little Ice Age warming trend.

The oil industry has profited more than anyone else from the political suppression of oil supply, as I have explained to you, very clearly and patiently, multiple times. That's why they financially back your CO2 climate narrative.

 

That is a propaganda term that does not refer to any actual person, AFAICT. Who are you claiming denies that climate changes? If you do not claim that anyone denies that climate changes, then maybe you should refrain from using a term that is always inherently a lie.

 

The CO2 climate narrative resembles a catechism more than it resembles science.

 

A climate science denialist would be someone who claims that the natural climate factors that determined the climate 8000 years ago are somehow magically no longer relevant. I.e., you.

What "AGW predicament" would that be? Would it be the AGW predicament that has seen the climate-related death rate plunge by an order of magnitude in the last century? That AGW predicament? Or would it be the AGW predicament that has seen deserts shrinking globally thanks to anthropogenic CO2's water-sparing effect on plants? That AGW predicament? Or would it be the AGW predicament that continues to increase agricultural yields thanks to CO2's fertilization effect and the microscopic increase in temperature that it has caused? That AGW predicament? Help me out here.

 

Ah! I see. It's a conspiracy theory. Like the conspiracy to make us think that Earth is not flat, or that we actually went to the Moon.

Sorry.... not interested...

 

And
Has volcanic ocean vent increased over the past decade

You're welcome

 

What scientists STATE is absolutely irrelevant. In science, the ONLY thing that matters is what they can prove. And there is only ONE way to prove anything in science: a hefty accumulation of peer reviewed studies.

The only thing anybody with a science degree who wanted to take their family for a cruise in the Caribbean for free needed to do was write an article saying that they have "doubts" and bingo! Royal Caribbean, here we come!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

Peer reviewed studies must meet a much much higher standard.

 

That has always been the debate.

 

Your position aligns with the pre-modern church; I'm with Galileo.
Eschatology and Global Warming

I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.

The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press[/h]https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564
May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...

Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books[/h]https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...
Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...

 

Orange juice prices are going through the roof — forcing some makers to consider alternative fruits

Prices of the breakfast staple have been climbing rapidly in recent years, partly driven by declining output in Florida — the main producer of orange juice in the U.S. — and climate-fueled extreme weather in the main orange producing areas of Brazil.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/30/ora...ternative-fruits-amid-record-high-prices.html

Darn that Biden causing inflation. Oh, wait..........

 

Florida made up any Brazilian shortfall, so Biden's not off the hook.
The 2023-2024 Florida all orange forecast released today by the USDA Agricultural Statistics Board is 20.5 million boxes, up 30 percent from last season's final production. The total includes 7.50 million boxes of non-Valencia oranges (early, mid-season, and Navel varieties) and 13.0 million boxes of Valencia oranges.Oct 12, 2023

citrus october forecast

 

No, more like the conspiracy to prevent economists from understanding enough economics to predict the GFC.

So you have decided to give everyone who engages in dishonesty a free pass, as long as they don't do it alone?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

 

Other than disproving your claim that they are all all-in on AGW, that is...

So, like the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that all agreed there could be no financial collapse?

Sure they do:

https://retractionwatch.com/

 

What about a vote for Trump? Trump said that the climate scientists DON'T KNOW about climate change, and it will be COOLER TOMORROW. Biden is at least taking it seriously. 4 years is not enough to control global warming.

 

"We are currently experiencing a significant wave of extinctions, often referred to as the sixth mass extinction or the Anthropocene extinction. This event is characterized by an accelerated rate of species loss, largely driven by human activities. Key factors contributing to these extinctions include:

1. Habitat Destruction: Urbanization, deforestation, and agricultural expansion destroy natural habitats, reducing the living space available for many species.
2. Climate Change: Rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events disrupt ecosystems and the species that depend on them.
3. Pollution: Chemicals, plastics, and other pollutants contaminate ecosystems, harming or killing wildlife.
4. Overexploitation: Overfishing, hunting, and poaching reduce populations of targeted species to critical levels.
5. Invasive Species: Non-native species introduced by human activity can outcompete, prey on, or bring diseases to native species.
6. Disease: The spread of diseases, often facilitated by human activity and global trade, can decimate populations of wildlife.

Evidence of this ongoing extinction event includes the rapid decline in populations of many species, the disappearance of species from their historical ranges, and the documented extinction of various plants and animals. Conservation efforts are underway globally to mitigate these effects, but the scale and speed of the current extinction crisis pose significant challenges."

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

 

The numbers don't support your claim.
Gregory Wrightstone: exposing the mass extinction lie
2019 › 05 › 27 › gregory-wrightstone-exposing-the-mass-extinction-lie
stunning analysis of these claims by Gregory Wrightstone. This made a big impact at Wednesday’s House ... By Gregory Wrightstone at his website, 13 May 2019.

". . . Below, all 529 species available from the Red List with a known extinction date are shown below in Figure 2 by decade of extinction. This chart reveals quite a different story than that advanced by the new report. Instead of a steady increase in the number and rate of extinctions we find that extinctions peaked in the late 1800s and the early 20th century, followed by a significant decline that continues today. It is thought that this extinction peak coincides with introduction of non-native species, primarily on islands (including Australia).



A closer review of the most recent information dating back to 1870 reveals that, instead of a frightening increase, extinctions are actually in a significant decline.

What is apparent is that the trend of extinctions is declining rather than increasing, just the opposite of what the new report claims. Also, according to the IPBES report, we can expect 25,000 to 30,000 extinctions per year, yet the average over the last 40 years is about 2 species annually. That means the rate would have to multiply by 12,500 to 15,000 to reach the dizzying heights predicted. Nothing on the horizon is likely to achieve even a small fraction of that.


. . . .

 

Bingo. Isolation drives speciation, and human marine transportation systems ended the isolation of a lot of vulnerable island species centuries ago. The species that survived are all more resilient, meaning they are now less and less likely to become extinct as a result of contact with more efficient occupiers of their niches, more effective predators, etc. However, this does not alter the threat posed by advancing technology through the more efficient harvesting and consequent over-exploitation of wild animal populations.

 

In the end, the data prevail.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems

By Andy May and Marcel Crok

We were charged by Marty Rowland and the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) with writing a literature review paper supporting the skeptical (aka “denier”) position with regard to dangerous man-made climate change. Our paper is fully peer-reviewed and presents what we think is the most convincing argument. Unfortunately, the paper is paywalled, but the submitted version, containing all the changes suggested by the peer-reviewers, can be downloaded here. . . .

The featured image for this post, also shown below, is part of figure 2 from the paper. It shows the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index compared to the detrended HadCRUT4 global average surface temperature record, the similarity is obvious. The AMO is the North Atlantic sea surface temperature record, detrended. The AMO has been traced back to 1567AD[1] and is clearly a natural oscillation. The fact that it can be seen in HadCRUT4 shows that at least some of recent climate change is natural. This and other problems with the IPCC AR6 conclusions are discussed in the paper.


Figure 1. Detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (the AMO) compared to detrended HadCRUT4 global average surface temperatures.
The case that human greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) control the climate as claimed in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) or that the resulting climate change is dangerous, is very weak. . . .

Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming.[7] Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels,[8] even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.

 

"Hottest ever" claims are nonsense.
Megafossil Carbon Dating Indicates Sweden Was 2-3°C Warmer Than Today During The Last Glacial
By Kenneth Richard on 30. May 2024

“Modern warming is within natural Holocene climate variability” – Kullman and Öberg, 2024
From about 16,800 to 6000 years ago warmth-dependent tree species grew 300-700 altitudinal meters higher than they do today on Mt. Åreskutanthan, Swedish Scandes.

Due to the well-known warmth threshold for boreal tree species and the lapse rate (0.6°C per 100 m), recovering birch, spruce, and pine megafossil remains at much higher elevations than today’s treeline altitudes affirms much warmer-than-today climates during the late last glacial and through the early Holocene, when CO2 ranged from 190 to 255 ppm.

“It is increasingly evident that common boreal tree species grew close to this summit in a climate, 2-3°C warmer than at present, during the Lateglacial and early Holocene periods 16 800- 6000 years ago.”

The scientists point out that such early dating for warmer-than-today climates has been viewed as controversial, as it is assumed the Earth had not sufficiently warmed or deglaciated until about 11,000 years ago, near the official starting timeline for the Holocene. But the carbon-dating of tree megafossils is regarded as a much more reliable data collection method than pollen analysis and terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide analysis, so these results are robust.

“Moreover, Mt. Åreskutan has been in the centre of a controversy concerning the date of deglaciation and late-glacial arboreal performance. Kullman (2000, 2002) presented robust megafossil data, showing unequivocal presence of mountain birch (Betula pubescens ssp. czerepanovii), spruce (Picea abies) and pine (Pinus sylvestris), as early as about 16 000 cal. a BP, close to the summit 300-400 m higher than present-day treelines.”

While there has been warming in this region recently, the warming is “within natural Holocene climate variability” and poses no threat to these landscapes. Instead, warming may enhance biodiversity in this region.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) promulgates a contrasting “alarmist and dystopic” viewpoint of warming as a “serious and imminent threat to man and planet Earth” as they simultaneously “downgrade natural climate history and rely more on immature and unvalidated numerical models.”



Image Source: Kullman and Öberg, 2024
For good measure, another new Scandinavian study (Salonen et al., 2024) indicates today’s temperatures in northern Finland are among the coldest of the last 8000 years (see “Present-day value” dashed line). Much of the Holocene – as well nearly all of the last interglacial (LIG) – was 2 to 2.5°C warmer than present.



Image Source: Salonen et al., 2024

 

Shattered the water temp record by what, a 1/100 of a degree like the air temp. TRIVIAL.

 

Let's take stock of where we are here. It seems like what we have is along the lines of what my daughter & I were figuring out. Her view was along the lines that while we may not have the scientific support for the AGW view we do have enough info to support public action.

Is that what you're saying?

 

I think she is on the right track.
I am saying that it is wise to avoid polluting your own world, wise to be conservative, to preserve assets and resources. But if you go berserk on that path, you will probably lose sight of the quality of life and do more harm than good. For example, wind energy- sounds free other than initial investment, but that's not true. They claim turbine blade life is 25 years- but that's not true either. Because those huge blades have a relatively short lifespan and are not recyclable, we now have huge storage dumps around the country where they accumulate, like we used to have for dumps for tires. And that ignores the bird kills and other downsides of the "clean energy" people think they provide. Those promoting wind farms don't mention the blade dumps, of course. But they do get huge tax benefits, which come from the pockets of all taxpayers whether they benefit or not. They don't mention that either.

So- who can teach us better? My higher power- is mother nature. I look at the millions of species that have thrived for millions of years, without imposing governments, religions or the many things humans have used to try to control themselves- and yet done so much better in so many ways. And, they have done that without poisoning the earth, consuming excesses of resources, or causing mass extinctions. I've been to the purest places left on earth to see nature doing this many times, without any human element involved- watched the thriving life, and I always asked myself the same question. What do they know that we don't know?

After about 20 years, I found the answer. Been living by it ever since, quite successfully. Unfortunately, most of the world isn't interested in how that's done. People want things to get better, but think the solutions should fit neatly into what they already believe and not inconvenience them. I suspect we will be the first species in the history of the planet to be totally responsible for our own extinction.

Scrapped wind turbine blades at a texas dump