Climate Change - a poll

[Trav Le Bleu]

We've put out loads of buckets to catch the expected rain today. I've written down all their sizes and positions.

 

That's right, I've made a bucket list.

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2025-08-energy-department-misrepresents-climate-science.html

 

Top scientists told AFP Thursday their research cited in a flagship climate report by the US Department of Energy (DoE) was misused to downplay the role of human activity in global warming.

The document released July 29 outlines the Trump administration's rationale for revoking a foundational scientific ruling that underpins the government's authority to combat climate change.

The paper was written by a working group including John Christy and Judith Curry, who have both in the past been linked to The Heartland Institute, an advocacy group that frequently pushes back against the scientific consensus on climate change.

It "completely misrepresents my work," Benjamin Santer, atmospheric scientist and honorary professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Britain, told AFP.

Santer said a section of the report on "stratospheric cooling" contradicted his findings while citing his research on climate "fingerprinting," a scientific method that seeks to separate human and natural climate change, as evidence for its analysis.

AFP and other media, including NOTUS, a US digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute, found inaccurate citations, flawed analysis and editorial errors across the document.

 

... imagine my surprise.

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2025-08-rewrite-national-climate.html

 

US President Donald Trump's administration is revising past editions of the nation's premier climate report—its latest move to undermine the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.

 

The decision, announced by Energy Secretary Chris Wright during a CNN appearance Tuesday night, follows the government's revocation of the Endangerment Finding, a scientific determination that underpins a host of regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Asked by CNN's Kaitlan Collins why previous editions of the National Climate Assessment were no longer available online, former fracking company CEO Wright responded: "Because we're reviewing them, and we will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those."

 

Fvck around...

 

https://phys.org/news/2025-08-north-atlantic-hurricane-clusters-climate.html

 

Tropical cyclones, commonly known as typhoons or hurricanes, can form in clusters and impact coastal regions back-to-back.

 

For example, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria hit the U.S. sequentially within one month in 2017. The Federal Emergency Management Agency failed to provide adequate support to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico when Maria struck because most rescue resources and specialized disaster staffers were deployed for the responses to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

 

A new study published in Nature Climate Change confirms these hurricane clusters are becoming more frequent in the North Atlantic in recent decades—a trend projected to continue in the near future.

 

...and find out.

[steveb]

Climate change is real.

Sciientific observation, experiment and result prove its real.

Science is accepted universally as truth. Kindly accept climate change is real or you just make yourself look stupid.

To deny Science, proven observations, you might as well say gravity does exist, water is not h2o, the world is flat, the sun and stars are just little lights in the sky.

 

Please don`t allow the self interest of our billionaire Fascist overlords make you stupid. 

 

If you don`t believe any of that just look out of the fkin window and look at the ever growing numbers of record weather occurrences right in front of your nose in every country in the World.

Record temperatures, record rainfall, record flooding, record snow, seasons all screwed up, massive coastal erosion..

Please don`t say its normal for example we all still talk about the summer of 1976 as a one off in our lifetime, nows its all of the time.

 

Edited 10 August 2025 by steveb

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, steveb said:

Climate change is real.

Sciientific observation, experiment and result prove its real.

Science is accepted universally as truth. Kindly accept climate change is real or you just make yourself look stupid.

To deny Science, proven observations, you might as well say gravity does exist, water is not h2o, the world is flat, the sun and stars are just little lights in the sky.

 

Please don`t allow the self interest of our billionaire Fascist overlords make you stupid. 

 

If you don`t believe any of that just look out of the fkin window and look at the ever growing numbers of record weather occurrences right in front of your nose in every country in the World.

Record temperatures, record rainfall, record flooding, record snow, seasons all screwed up, massive coastal erosion..

Please don`t say its normal for example we all still talk about the summer of 1976 as a one off in our lifetime, nows its all of the time.

 

but its not ‘all of the time.’

last summer wasn’t so great 

weather isn’t climate 

Your point should be that climate change will make the extremes bigger.  So the average will ease up as the extremes are reflected 

 

I think that those who deny climate change are more saying that blaming co2 alone for it is unproven.  Vast majority of scientists are not on that page, 
 

there is some evidence that the increase over the past few decades in solar input may well have some responsibility.  but is that a consequence of climate change rather than a cause??  

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

but its not ‘all of the time.’

last summer wasn’t so great 

weather isn’t climate 

Your point should be that climate change will make the extremes bigger.  So the average will ease up as the extremes are reflected 

 

I think that those who deny climate change are more saying that blaming co2 alone for it is unproven.  Vast majority of scientists are not on that page, 
 

there is some evidence that the increase over the past few decades in solar input may well have some responsibility.  but is that a consequence of climate change rather than a cause??  

Climate is the principal driver of weather.

 

Of course, carbon dioxide is far from the only greenhouse gas (methane another key party there), but from the first page of this very thread:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

 

"Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA (Global Mean Temperature Anomalies). Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO₂, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming."

 

If people are quibbling over what they think is a lack of consensus on what particular gases drive climate change, then they are mistaken and such quibbles are pointless given the drivers are pretty much accounted for within the scientific consensus of data.

 

It's absolutely right that the warming climate results in more extreme events, and that should be emphasised.

 

NB. I think at this point you show a rather extremely disproportionate level of charity to the climate change ignorers corps by believing them to be simply sceptical of a few parts of the drivers of it, rather than (as appears to be more and more obvious) either ignorant or maliciously self-interested or both. Giving the benefit of the doubt to them and entertaining their points in practically any fashion involving policy decision-making at this time is nothing more than wasting time. Time that costs money and lives, both present and future.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq877llq099o

 

World-famous coral reefs along Western Australia's (WA) coast have suffered the worst bleaching on record after the state's "longest, largest and most intense" marine heatwave, scientists say.

Between last August and this May, warmer water temperatures led to significant heat stress on the reefs, causing many of the coral to expel the algae which gives them life and colour - a process called bleaching, which is often fatal.

The damage - which will take months to assess - spans 1,500km (932 miles) and includes areas previously unscathed by climate change.

Coral reefs worldwide have been suffering from a two-year-long global coral bleaching event, due to record high ocean temperatures.

Eight weeks of heat stress is usually enough to kill coral, and early estimates showed many WA reefs suffered between 15 and 30, said Australia's marine science agency. 

 

Record-breaking shows good progress... right?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vd79x97zlo

 

Cities across the UK are facing a growing threat from an emerging phenomenon called "firewaves" as temperatures rise due to climate change, scientists have warned.

The term, coined by researchers at Imperial College London, describes multiple urban wildfires triggered by extended periods of hot, dry weather.

The warning comes as firefighters battled three separate heath fires in London and a dramatic gorse blaze on Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh in recent days, as this summer's latest heatwave left vegetation across both capitals dangerously dry.

These fires, though now contained, highlight the increasing vulnerability of urban areas to wildfires - a risk that was once considered largely rural.

 

Nothing but good news right now, huh?

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2025-08-scientists-harsh-grades-trump-administration.html

 

The laws of thermodynamics don't care about political ideology. Nor do their consequences. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4y159190go

 

Interesting article on what the Chinese are doing (right direction but not enough) and a little bit on what the US, among others are doing (not enough and entirely the wrong direction too).

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

 

The Conservatives have pledged to scrap the UK's landmark climate change legislation and replace it with a strategy for "cheap and reliable" energy.

The Climate Change Act 2008, which put targets for cutting emissions into law, was introduced by the last Labour government and strengthened under Tory PM Theresa May.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party wanted to leave "a cleaner environment for our children" but argued "Labour's laws tied us in red tape, loaded us with costs, and did nothing to cut global emissions".

 

It's unfortunate that the Conservatives are looking to follow Reform in terms of destructive short sighted gain at the expense of the future. 

[SpacedX]

Put very simply:

 

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports that carbon dioxide growth rates have tripled since the 1960s. This means the annual increase in CO2 levels has accelerated significantly, reaching a rate of approximately 2.4 ppm per year from 2011-2020, compared to about 0.8 ppm per year in the 1960s, whilst last year was the hottest since global records began. Assuming we immediately stopped burning fossil fuels, although about half of the excess CO2 would be absorbed relatively quickly by natural carbon sinks like oceans and land, atmospheric CO2 levels would not return to pre-industrial levels for many thousands of years.

 

I'm curious to elicit the views of those that in this thread's poll voted for 'not real' or 'real just nature'. That CO2 absorbs infrared energy, re-emitting it back towards Earth as heat, acting like a blanket trapping heat and the fact that that levels have witnessed a threefold increase over the last half a century is not up for debate. Nor is the fact that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

Are you in denial of any of the above? Genuine question. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, SpacedX said:

Put very simply:

 

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports that carbon dioxide growth rates have tripled since the 1960s. This means the annual increase in CO2 levels has accelerated significantly, reaching a rate of approximately 2.4 ppm per year from 2011-2020, compared to about 0.8 ppm per year in the 1960s, whilst last year was the hottest since global records began. Assuming we immediately stopped burning fossil fuels, although about half of the excess CO2 would be absorbed relatively quickly by natural carbon sinks like oceans and land, atmospheric CO2 levels would not return to pre-industrial levels for many thousands of years.

 

I'm curious to elicit the views of those that in this thread's poll voted for 'not real' or 'real just nature'. That CO2 absorbs infrared energy, re-emitting it back towards Earth as heat, acting like a blanket trapping heat and the fact that that levels have witnessed a threefold increase over the last half a century is not up for debate. Nor is the fact that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

Are you in denial of any of the above? Genuine question. 

A question I've asked before, and I've not really heard much beyond platitudes about "more urgent concerns" and a screed calling the entire scientific method into question (which doesn't really mean much when you can't state a better way of discerning the world works past, present and future). So I'd be rather interested in some answers, too. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24kllyye1o

 

The UK should be prepared to cope with weather extremes as a result of at least 2C of global warming by 2050, independent climate advisers have said.

The country was "not yet adapted" to worsening weather extremes already occurring at current levels of warming, "let alone" what was expected to come, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) wrote in a letter addressed to the government.

The committee said they would advise that the UK prepare for climate change beyond the long-term temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement.

The letter came as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed that 2024 had seen a record rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

 

The consequences are already inevitable. The question now will be how much we can limit them and adapt to them in order to preserve as much life as we can. 

 

Edit: and to make sure it is recorded for as much posterity as possible, the who and the why of those consequences for everyone in the future to see and know in infamy.

Edited 15 October 2025 by leicsmac

[grobyfox1990]

3 hours ago, SpacedX said:

Put very simply:

 

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports that carbon dioxide growth rates have tripled since the 1960s. This means the annual increase in CO2 levels has accelerated significantly, reaching a rate of approximately 2.4 ppm per year from 2011-2020, compared to about 0.8 ppm per year in the 1960s, whilst last year was the hottest since global records began. Assuming we immediately stopped burning fossil fuels, although about half of the excess CO2 would be absorbed relatively quickly by natural carbon sinks like oceans and land, atmospheric CO2 levels would not return to pre-industrial levels for many thousands of years.

 

I'm curious to elicit the views of those that in this thread's poll voted for 'not real' or 'real just nature'. That CO2 absorbs infrared energy, re-emitting it back towards Earth as heat, acting like a blanket trapping heat and the fact that that levels have witnessed a threefold increase over the last half a century is not up for debate. Nor is the fact that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

Are you in denial of any of the above? Genuine question. 

 

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A question I've asked before, and I've not really heard much beyond platitudes about "more urgent concerns" and a screed calling the entire scientific method into question (which doesn't really mean much when you can't state a better way of discerning the world works past, present and future). So I'd be rather interested in some answers, too. 

Long winded way of saying you've been taken in by the CARBON CON JOB - vote Reform!!!!

[grobyfox1990]

I got extensively trolled in the media yesterday for work on jurisdictional net zero targets I am doing, was strangely satisfying. Name, picture, job title etc put up. They found me and lobbied me via email!! 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I got extensively trolled in the media yesterday for work on jurisdictional net zero targets I am doing, was strangely satisfying. Name, picture, job title etc put up. They found me and lobbied me via email!! 

I guess it's a badge of honour to be famous enough on the matter to be doxxed? 

 

But in all seriousness, how ridiculous yet indicative of some folks in what's supposed to be a more enlightened era. 

[grobyfox1990]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I guess it's a badge of honour to be famous enough on the matter to be doxxed? 

 

But in all seriousness, how ridiculous yet indicative of some folks in what's supposed to be a more enlightened era. 

It is awesome, I was called a..

 

'a joke'

'utter nonsense'

'out of touch'

'stupid bustard' (sic)

'left wing nut job'

'ridiculous waste of money'

'so called climate professor'

'completely unelected'

 

Incredible experience. Tbf I would say I am atleast over half of them...

Edited 15 October 2025 by grobyfox1990

[bovril]

16 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

It is awesome, I was called a..

 

'a joke'

'utter nonsense'

'out of touch'

'stupid bustard' (sic)

'left wing nut job'

'ridiculous waste of money'

'so called climate professor'

'completely unelected'

 

Incredible experience. Tbf I would say I am atleast over half of them...

So slightly less toxic than foxestalk then?

Edited 15 October 2025 by bovril

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

It is awesome, I was called a..

 

'a joke'

'utter nonsense'

'out of touch'

'stupid bustard' (sic)

'left wing nut job'

'ridiculous waste of money'

'so called climate professor'

'completely unelected'

 

Incredible experience. Tbf I would say I am atleast over half of them...

Really feeling the love, then? 

 

Tbf it shows yet again the weakness of a straight democracy when it comes to scientific policymaking, long term in particular. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

So slightly less toxic than foxestalk then

I reckon about middle of the road match thread in terms of toxicity?

[FoxesDeb]

38 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

It is awesome, I was called a..

 

'a joke'

'utter nonsense'

'out of touch'

'stupid bustard' (sic)

'left wing nut job'

'ridiculous waste of money'

'so called climate professor'

'completely unelected'

 

Incredible experience. Tbf I would say I am atleast over half of them...

Although this makes me sad on your behalf I have the feeling you have taken it on the chin 

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Although this makes me sad on your behalf I have the feeling you have taken it on the chin 

I was disappointed I wasn't able to get under his skin.

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-paris-agreement-offset-economic-growth.html

 

Interesting analysis on the current state of things.

[leicsmac]

On 15/10/2025 at 14:27, SpacedX said:

Put very simply:

 

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports that carbon dioxide growth rates have tripled since the 1960s. This means the annual increase in CO2 levels has accelerated significantly, reaching a rate of approximately 2.4 ppm per year from 2011-2020, compared to about 0.8 ppm per year in the 1960s, whilst last year was the hottest since global records began. Assuming we immediately stopped burning fossil fuels, although about half of the excess CO2 would be absorbed relatively quickly by natural carbon sinks like oceans and land, atmospheric CO2 levels would not return to pre-industrial levels for many thousands of years.

 

I'm curious to elicit the views of those that in this thread's poll voted for 'not real' or 'real just nature'. That CO2 absorbs infrared energy, re-emitting it back towards Earth as heat, acting like a blanket trapping heat and the fact that that levels have witnessed a threefold increase over the last half a century is not up for debate. Nor is the fact that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 

Are you in denial of any of the above? Genuine question. 

 

On 15/10/2025 at 17:29, leicsmac said:

A question I've asked before, and I've not really heard much beyond platitudes about "more urgent concerns" and a screed calling the entire scientific method into question (which doesn't really mean much when you can't state a better way of discerning the world works past, present and future). So I'd be rather interested in some answers, too. 

There was some talk about this all in the cvnts thread recently, and I would invite those who still doubt the consensus of data to further explain their reasoning here. 

 

Genuine curiosity; I really want to get my head round why a person would choose that particular pathway and I've never heard a really fully decent explanation.