Climate Change(d)?

[DBT]

The new religion, it appears that some folk tend to favour political ideology over science.

Climate catastrophe is all about politics.

It's physics, not politics, that determines climate.

Your reading comprehension is poor.

You didn't understand what I said.

Your reading comprehension is actually shit.

Maybe it's your biased comprehension of the issue of climate change and unwillingness to consider that you may be wrong that is the problem?

Have you considered that possibility?

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe we are being too subtle with TSwizzle.

Maybe he does not realize we think he is a joke, and we do not tale him seriously.

 

[TSwizzle]

The new religion, it appears that some folk tend to favour political ideology over science.

Climate catastrophe is all about politics.

It's physics, not politics, that determines climate.

Your reading comprehension is poor.

You didn't understand what I said.

Your reading comprehension is actually shit.

Maybe it's your biased comprehension of the issue of climate change and unwillingness to consider that you may be wrong that is the problem?

Have you considered that possibility?

The issue is your reading comprehension is shit, fella.

 

[TSwizzle]

Maybe we are being too subtle with TSwizzle.

Maybe he does not realize we think he is a joke, and we do not tale him seriously.

I certainly don't take this bs thread seriously. But for whatever reason, you lot keep posting garbage to it.

The thread has gone around in circles for five years now. It's not a serious subject.

It is a catastrophic 78f in Santa Monica today.

 

[DBT]

The new religion, it appears that some folk tend to favour political ideology over science.

Climate catastrophe is all about politics.

It's physics, not politics, that determines climate.

Your reading comprehension is poor.

You didn't understand what I said.

Your reading comprehension is actually shit.

Maybe it's your biased comprehension of the issue of climate change and unwillingness to consider that you may be wrong that is the problem?

Have you considered that possibility?

The issue is your reading comprehension is shit, fella.

I think that what you need is a nice shiny mirror to gaze into. It's doubtful, but who knows, it may help.

 

[TSwizzle]

The new religion, it appears that some folk tend to favour political ideology over science.

Climate catastrophe is all about politics.

It's physics, not politics, that determines climate.

Your reading comprehension is poor.

You didn't understand what I said.

Your reading comprehension is actually shit.

Maybe it's your biased comprehension of the issue of climate change and unwillingness to consider that you may be wrong that is the problem?

Have you considered that possibility?

The issue is your reading comprehension is shit, fella.

I think that what you need is a nice shiny mirror to gaze into. It's doubtful, but who knows, it may help.

What you need is a lesson in reading comprehension.

 

[DBT]

The new religion, it appears that some folk tend to favour political ideology over science.

Climate catastrophe is all about politics.

It's physics, not politics, that determines climate.

Your reading comprehension is poor.

You didn't understand what I said.

Your reading comprehension is actually shit.

Maybe it's your biased comprehension of the issue of climate change and unwillingness to consider that you may be wrong that is the problem?

Have you considered that possibility?

The issue is your reading comprehension is shit, fella.

I think that what you need is a nice shiny mirror to gaze into. It's doubtful, but who knows, it may help.

What you need is a lesson in reading comprehension.

Where's your mirror? Have you tossed it away? The physical process of climate change has nothing to do with politics. Climate is a matter of physics, the gasses we pump into the atmosphere in addition to natural processes. That is the issue.

Your denial of the issue and the science behind it is where politics comes into it, where your position on the matter is political rather than scientific.

Are you able to grasp the distinction?

 

[bilby]

The thread has gone around in circles for five years now. It's not a serious subject.

Today I learned that @TSwizzle knows so little about climate science that he thinks five years is a long time.

Even YECs are able to think in terms of centuries (even millennia as long as there are no more than half a dozen of them). But this fella reckons that if it hasn't dramatically affected Santa Monica within half a decade, it cannot be serious.

To quote well known social commentator K. T. Frog, "It's not easy being green".

 

[steve_bank]

The TSwizenator still has not offered any refutation of the science behind global warming.

The burden of proof is on you lot. You have failed miserably.

I and others have explained it over and over. You are either unable or unwilling to follow it. or a combination of te two.

To make your case you have to refute thermodynamics, the most foundational part of science. Anyone in any hard science or engineering learns it.

Thermodynamics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thermodynamics is a branch of physics that deals with heat, work, and temperature, and their relation to energy, entropy, and the physical properties of matter and radiation. The behavior of these quantities is governed by the four laws of thermodynamics, which convey a quantitative description using measurable macroscopic physical quantities but may be explained in terms of microscopic constituents by statistical mechanics. Thermodynamics applies to various topics in science and engineering, especially physical chemistry, biochemistry, chemical engineering, and mechanical engineering, as well as other complex fields such as meteorology.

Climate is a thermodynamic system. Storms fuled by ocean temperatures are called thermodynamic engines.


To put it simply again.

Greenhouse gazes are essential to life on Earth. Without greenhouse gases the Earth would be cold and frozen. Solar radiation heats the Earth and it is reradiated back into space, inferred thermal radiation.

Mars is cold because it has no greenhouse gases.

On a sunny day in the winter a large rock in the sun heats up. After the sun goes down you feel heat radiating from the rock. It radiates back into space. Greenhouse gases trap some of the heat.

Greenhouse gases act like a blanket that traps heat warming the surface.

Add to much gases and surface temperature goes up. Conservation of energy from thermodynamics.

It is as simple as that.

And again if not human caused, what is the 'natural; cause of ocean warming?

TSwizzle

I do not take you seriously. Being retired I post to keep my head busy and engaged, neuroscience says it helps to minimize risk of cognitive decline. Plus it gives me a greatat big belly laugh.

No refutation on what I said?

Let's you and I take it one step at a time.

Do you undershorts that greenhouse gases are essential to life? Without it the Earth would be cold and frozen.

Do you understand or do you disagree?

You may be hesitant to respond, fearing it may lead you where you do not want to go.

 

[TSwizzle]

The new religion, it appears that some folk tend to favour political ideology over science.

Climate catastrophe is all about politics.

It's physics, not politics, that determines climate.

Your reading comprehension is poor.

You didn't understand what I said.

Your reading comprehension is actually shit.

Maybe it's your biased comprehension of the issue of climate change and unwillingness to consider that you may be wrong that is the problem?

Have you considered that possibility?

The issue is your reading comprehension is shit, fella.

I think that what you need is a nice shiny mirror to gaze into. It's doubtful, but who knows, it may help.

What you need is a lesson in reading comprehension.

Where's your mirror? Have you tossed it away? The physical process of climate change has nothing to do with politics. Climate is a matter of physics, the gasses we pump into the atmosphere in addition to natural processes. That is the issue.

Your denial of the issue and the science behind it is where politics comes into it, where your position on the matter is political rather than scientific.

Are you able to grasp the distinction?

Take a lesson in reading comprehension fella.

 

[TSwizzle]

The TSwizenator still has not offered any refutation of the science behind global warming.

The burden of proof is on you lot. You have failed miserably.

I and others have explained it over and over. You are either unable or unwilling to follow it. or a combination of te two.

To make your case you have to refute thermodynamics, the most foundational part of science. Anyone in any hard science or engineering learns it.

Thermodynamics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thermodynamics is a branch of physics that deals with heat, work, and temperature, and their relation to energy, entropy, and the physical properties of matter and radiation. The behavior of these quantities is governed by the four laws of thermodynamics, which convey a quantitative description using measurable macroscopic physical quantities but may be explained in terms of microscopic constituents by statistical mechanics. Thermodynamics applies to various topics in science and engineering, especially physical chemistry, biochemistry, chemical engineering, and mechanical engineering, as well as other complex fields such as meteorology.

Climate is a thermodynamic system. Storms fuled by ocean temperatures are called thermodynamic engines.


To put it simply again.

Greenhouse gazes are essential to life on Earth. Without greenhouse gases the Earth would be cold and frozen. Solar radiation heats the Earth and it is reradiated back into space, inferred thermal radiation.

Mars is cold because it has no greenhouse gases.

On a sunny day in the winter a large rock in the sun heats up. After the sun goes down you feel heat radiating from the rock. It radiates back into space. Greenhouse gases trap some of the heat.

Greenhouse gases act like a blanket that traps heat warming the surface.

Add to much gases and surface temperature goes up. Conservation of energy from thermodynamics.

It is as simple as that.

And again if not human caused, what is the 'natural; cause of ocean warming?

TSwizzle

I do not take you seriously. Being retired I post to keep my head busy and engaged, neuroscience says it helps to minimize risk of cognitive decline. Plus it gives me a greatat big belly laugh.

No refutation on what I said?

Let's you and I take it one step at a time.

Do you undershorts that greenhouse gases are essential to life? Without it the Earth would be cold and frozen.

Do you understand or do you disagree?

You may be hesitant to respond, fearing it may lead you where you do not want to go.

Try Sudoku or a crossword instead.

 

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle

As expected you will not answer the question.

I was never into games, never did a Rubik's Cube. Last time I played a video game was around 1982. Boring.

I once heard it said the best entertainment is learning something new.

I worked on real problems.

If you do not understand why the Earth is warm in the cold vacuum of space to begin with then global warming will be a mystery to you.

Being f aced with a mystery always motivated me to learn.

Thermodynamics and physics 'for dummies' books. The books are generally well written for those without a background who want to learn.

It is easy to be ignorant, it takes no effort.

Thermodynamics for Dummies book by Mike Pauken

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

No they don’t know. That’s why climate catastrophe is a religion.

Besides, the earth’s climate has been remarkably stable and well within natural variability.

It’s a catastrophic 66f today. I may have to wear a sweater today.

How our input into climate change has been examined and understood has been explained.

lol. It really is a religion for you.

You have zero evidence that the climate has changed in any measurable way due to human activity. There has been an imperceptible increase in global average temperature (a meaningless metric) and everything else presented are dubious studies that “suggest” we are on the brink of climate apocalypse.

Imperceptible. About a degree since the 70s. That does sound small.

El Nino is the eastern Pacific rising in average temp starting at around 0.5 degree. A very strong El Nino is only 2+ degrees.

So an imperceptible change in water temperature of less than a single degree can impact the climate of Eastern Africa to the Atlantic.

1 degree is imperceptible? 5 degrees is ice age.

The natural greenhouse effect is 32 degrees.

 

[steve_bank]

1 degree C rise in ocean temperature is enormous.

It is a huge increase in heat, thermal energy.

One of the most basic equations.

The expression q = m c ΔT is the standard heat‑transfer equation, where q is heat energy, m is mass, c is specific heat capacity, and ΔT is the temperature change. It quantifies how much thermal energy a substance absorbs or releases when its temperature changes


What Each Symbol Means

q — Heat energy transferred (J, kJ, cal).
m — Mass of the substance (kg, g).
c — Specific heat capacity, a material property (J/kg·K, J/g·K).
ΔT — Temperature change (final − initial), in °C or K (numerically identical).

You can look up an average C for seawater and ocean mass estimates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We just hit a record high for this date here.

Daily temps aren't much in the discussion. Record averages for monthly temps are more critical.

Daily temps don't matter, but the number of daily records broken means something.

And when our local record got obliterated by a 120F day (IIRC it was 117F) that means a lot. Records should only break by one degree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The TSwizenator still has not offered any refutation of the science behind global warming.

The burden of proof is on you lot. You have failed miserably.

We look at the real world results. We see the temperature rising. Slowly but it keeps doing so. And we understand how catastrophic that can be. And we see that basically every objection is about trying to sow doubt, not about rebutting the basic data.

5 degrees cooler is ice age temperature. And Earth's last thermal maximum is estimated at 3-6 degrees. That took out most life on Earth. Worst case predictions down the road for what we are doing are around 6 degrees--in other words, taking out most life on Earth. And note that that completely ignores the methane hydrates as we don't have enough data to make reasonable predictions yet. But the worst case there is figured around 8 degrees. And they add.

 

[steve_bank]

From BBC news yesterday.

England’s Record Octopus Bloom: Scale, Causes, and Impacts

A record‑level surge in common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) numbers is underway off southwest England, the largest in at least 75 years, and one of only four major blooms recorded in the past 125 years

What’s Happening

Since late 2025, common octopus populations have exploded along Devon and Cornwall’s coast, with sightings spreading into the English Channel, Wales, and even as far north as Scotland The Marine Biological Association (MBA) and Plymouth Marine Laboratory describe it as an extraordinary, climate‑driven event


Research links the bloom to:

Unusually warm sea temperatures in 2025 and the preceding year, making conditions ideal for breeding and survival
Ocean currents and easterly winds transporting larvae from the Channel Islands and northern France into UK waters

Ocean currents and easterly winds transporting larvae from the Channel Islands and northern France into UK waters

Impacts

Fisheries:

Over half of surveyed fishers report negative effects from octopus predation on crabs, lobsters, and scallops, with catches down 30–50% in 2025

Shellfish stocks face long‑term risk; some fisheries have had to adapt or re

 

[bilby]

The pre-industrial level of CO₂ was 280ppm for about 6,000 years.

Today the level is 426ppm. The last time CO₂ levels were this high was in the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when sea levels were about 20m higher than they are today, and the Arctic Tundra was densely forested.

CO₂ is increasing at a touch more than 2ppm per annum, and that rate of increase is accelerating; At 1,000ppm, it will reach the level seen at the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, where the high CO₂ level led to anoxic ocean conditions that generated sufficient H₂S to poison most (perhaps all) multicellular life on land and in the sea, and to destroy the ozone layer, leading to UV damage even to the surviving land microbiota.

We have been pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere for just a couple of centuries; Another couple of centuries may be sufficient to render multicellular life, and indeed unicellular aerobic life, extinct; This is known as the Kump Hypothesis, named for Lee Kump, head of geosciences at Penn State.

This is probably not an hypothesis we should be testing experimentally.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

No they don’t know. That’s why climate catastrophe is a religion.

Besides, the earth’s climate has been remarkably stable and well within natural variability.

It’s a catastrophic 66f today. I may have to wear a sweater today.

How our input into climate change has been examined and understood has been explained.

lol. It really is a religion for you.

You have zero evidence that the climate has changed in any measurable way due to human activity. There has been an imperceptible increase in global average temperature (a meaningless metric) and everything else presented are dubious studies that “suggest” we are on the brink of climate apocalypse.

Imperceptible. About a degree since the 70s. That does sound small.

El Nino is the eastern Pacific rising in average temp starting at around 0.5 degree. A very strong El Nino is only 2+ degrees.

So an imperceptible change in water temperature of less than a single degree can impact the climate of Eastern Africa to the Atlantic.

1 degree is imperceptible?

Yes, it is hard to physically distinguish 1 degree change in the air or water. I then provided context as to why that wasn't relevant. Please pay better attention to the entire post you are responding to.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biag125/8836482?login=false

The link explains how the climate is rapidly changing due to human behavior. it's a report by actual scientists, not some clueless guy who keeps telling us how lovely the weather is where he lives.

We are witnessing the rapid destabilization of the Earth’s climate system. This is no longer a warning for the future; it is a diagnosis of the present. Earth’s life-support systems are being pushed beyond stable limits, with changes unfolding faster than our ability to respond. Human activities are driving profound shifts in the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher now than any time in the last 2 million years (IPCC 2021). Across the globe, extreme heat, floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires are no longer rare events but defining features of a changing planet. For example, July 2026 was the hottest month on record for the contiguous United States (1895–present) (NOAA 2026), while global ocean temperatures also reached a record high for July (figure S1). Climate-related changes appear to be accelerating and intensifying, raising concerns about reinforcing feedbacks and crossing of tipping points, with potential irreversible impacts. Climate change is increasingly interacting with global biodiversity loss, freshwater stress, food insecurity, pathogens, and geopolitical instability, amplifying risks across interconnected human and natural systems. Yet, the gap between scientific understanding and societal response continues to widen despite mounting evidence of escalating risks. The evidence for accelerating climate and ecological disruption is now so compelling that attention must shift toward rapid decarbonization as well as adaptation, resilience, scalable responses, and transformative systemic change. Crucially, the communities least responsible for historical emissions, particularly in the Global South and small island states, are bearing disproportionately severe and early consequences, raising fundamental questions of climate justice that must inform both policy and science.

Amid these intensifying risks, important signs of societal and technological transformation are also emerging. Solar and wind power are expanding rapidly worldwide, with low-carbon sources providing roughly 43% of global electricity generation in 2025 (Ember 2026a). This signals the emergence of a new clean-energy era, the Age of Electricity. At the same time, advances in energy storage, adaptation planning, ecosystem restoration, and climate response tools are providing new opportunities to reduce risks from climate change and strengthen resilience across human and natural systems. Although current progress remains far below what is needed to stabilize the climate system, these developments suggest that large-scale societal transformation remains possible and still within reach.

In this report, we update the vital signs of the planet and the human activities driving their rapid change. We provide a clear synthesis of the latest evidence for scientists, policymakers, and the public while identifying the risks ahead and the opportunities for meaningful action still available. Documenting change is no longer enough. We must also communicate what it means and what actions are needed. As scientists, we have a responsibility to communicate these realities with clarity and urgency. This report is part of our ongoing effort to deliver timely, accessible updates on rapidly intensifying climate change.

There is a lot of information in the link, if anyone is interested in learning more about he latest climate change issues. It will ask you if you are human before you can read it, but it doesn't ask for any personal information and it's not behind a paywall.