2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin

[civilwarbuff]

Rapid reduction in fossil fuel burning urgently needed to preserve liveable conditions, say scientists, as climate damage deepens.

2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin​

Rapid reduction in fossil fuel burning urgently needed to preserve liveable conditions, say scientists, as climate damage deepens

2023 “smashed” the record for the hottest year by a huge margin, providing “dramatic testimony” of how much warmer and more dangerous today’s climate is from the cooler one in which human civilisation developed.
The planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. The figure is very close to the 1.5C temperature target set by countries in Paris in 2015
Guardian January 9th 2024

I think we need to take this seriously. We are on the edge.

So I guess we were burning too much fossil fuels during the Cretaceous Period which would account for the much higher temps ever. Oh, wait.....we weren't around then. So maybe the Earth is once again experiencing similar climactic changes of which we did not initiate and cannot control. How arrogant of people to believe that we have the power to control anything and everything.
Paleoclimatology section

Cretaceous Period | Definition, Climate, Dinosaurs, & Map

Cretaceous Period, in geologic time, the last of the three periods of the Mesozoic Era. It began 145 million years ago and ended 66 million years ago and featured the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the period.

www.britannica.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

What I don't see in the report is evidence that human burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause.

In the 5th IPCC, you can see that fossil fuels is the #1 (and majority) contributor to anthropogenic GHG. Greater than agricultural, forestry and land use (AFOLU) and other industrial processes combined.

 

[Merrill]

Meanwhile

 

[essentialsaltes]

So I guess we were burning too much fossil fuels during the Cretaceous Period which would account for the much higher temps ever. Oh, wait.....we weren't around then.

This is like saying that Thomas Sweatt is innocent of his arsons because there was a great fire in Rome in 64 AD, and plastic milk jugs didn't exist back then.

The evidence of Sweatt's crimes leads to a conclusion as to the cause.
The evidence of climate change leads to a conclusion as to the cause.

The evidence of different situations leads to different causes.

 

[BCP1928]

Meanwhile
View attachment 342632

You guys told us she was a witch; now we're afraid to say anything to her about it.

 

[Whyayeman]

Meanwhile
View attachment 342632

It is the media I find a bit odd. Private jets contribute grossly to climate heating.

Strange, but true. The media are a bit iffy when it comes to celebrities, preferring juicy stories to sober reporting about their extravagant lifestyles.

 

[o_mlly]

In the 5th IPCC, you can see that fossil fuels is the #1 (and majority) contributor to anthropogenic GHG. Greater than agricultural, forestry and land use (AFOLU) and other industrial processes combined.

View attachment 342631

Thanks for the graphs. I believe that all the graphs show is that fossil fuel CO2 is increasing over time. What we're looking for is evidence supporting the claim that fossil fuel is the primary cause of global warming.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The evidence of climate change leads to a conclusion as to the cause.

As many leftists here have stated: The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thanks for the graphs. I believe that all the graphs show is that fossil fuel CO2 is increasing over time. What we're looking for is evidence supporting the claim that fossil fuel is the primary cause of global warming.

You appear to accept that CO2 is a "planet-warming gas".
So that and the rest of the information you've seen recently closes the loop.

 

[o_mlly]

You appear to accept that CO2 is a "planet-warming gas".
So that and the rest of the information you've seen recently closes the loop.

? Non-sequitur.

 

[Nithavela]

You appear to accept that CO2 is a "planet-warming gas".
So that and the rest of the information you've seen recently closes the loop.

I am reminded of this meme:

 

[o_mlly]

I am reminded of this meme:

 

[BCP1928]

? Non-sequitur.

If you accept that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere contributes to global warming,
If you accept that some of that CO2 is human generated,
Then it seems sort of strange to assert that reducing the human contribution will have no useful effect on global warming.

But OK, that's your position and you're welcome to it.

What I don't get is why you think reducing human generated CO2 is not just misguided but wrong. Where is the moral issue in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?

 

[o_mlly]

If you accept that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere contributes to global warming,
If you accept that some of that CO2 is human generated,
Then it seems sort of strange to assert that reducing the human contribution will have no useful effect on global warming.

But OK, that's your position and you're welcome to it.

The issue is the lack of evidence to support the claim that "fossil fuel is the primary cause of global warming."

What I don't get is why you think reducing human generated CO2 is not just misguided but wrong. Where is the moral issue in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?

The reduction human generated CO2 is not intrinsically wrong. Governments who would restrict the burning of fossil fuels from those who would suffer as a result is a moral issue.

 

[BCP1928]

The issue is the lack of evidence to support the claim that "fossil fuel is the primary cause of global warming."

The reduction human generated CO2 is not intrinsically wrong. Governments who would restrict the burning of fossil fuels from those who would suffer as a result is a moral issue.

Fossil fuel producers and their large industrial customers. OK, now I see why it has become a moral issue for Christians. Thanks.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Governments who would restrict the burning of fossil fuels from those who would suffer as a result is a moral issue.

Aha, now we see who has prejudged the outcome!

Evidence should not be ignored on the basis of the policy.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

There is no climatre crisis. We are not on the verge of anything. We are in another cycle. Do some research on the US weather paterns in the mid-1930's. Or go back and study the mini-ice age. Or follow this site:

https://realclimatescience.com

Note: He's gotten so many attacks from the far left and "just stop oil" sillies that he's had to add a "prove you're human" gateway. It's easy enough, but still.

Also, there's

https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateDN

https://www.youtube.com/@co2science

https://www.youtube.com/@FriendsofScience

Etc.

And this video is a favorite regarding recent rundowns and addresses the OP:

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Aha, now we see who has prejudged the outcome!

Evidence should not be ignored on the basis of the policy.

Anyone serious about reducing our dependence on petroleum is a strong proponent of nuclear. If they are not, they are not to be taken seriously. Until we learn how to exploits the power derived from Dilithium Crystals, it's all we have.

As for me, I think we could use a lot more CO2 in our atmosphere, so this is a non-issue.

 

[o_mlly]

Fossil fuel producers and their large industrial customers. OK, now I see why it has become a moral issue for Christians. Thanks.

Spare us the sarcasm. Agriculture and the transportation sectors and others are significant users of fossil fuels.

Here's a sarcastic retort": "Let others freeze to death in the dark or starve to death so the air we elites breathe is purportedly safer."

Aha, now we see who has prejudged the outcome!

Really? Try again.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Really? Try again.

Yes really. Your comment about freezing to death, and other recent comments, are examples of the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

You should just take comfort in the fact that, although climate change is real, and caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, humanity has been largely unable to meaningfully do anything about the situation. So those undesirable consequences (the ones you're worried about, anyway) won't come to pass.