According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Omegatime
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Here are a few countries with their hottest years on record.
It is interesting to observe when these ten hottest years occured.
Canada
Nine of the ten warmest years have occurred during the last 25 years, with 2010 being the warmest
on record (3.0°C above the 1961 to 1990 reference value).
Please note: Canada like Europe is 3 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average temperature.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom recorded its hottest ever year in 2022, with an average temperature
of 10.03 degrees Celsius. Since the start of temperature recording in 1884, the 10 warmest years
recorded in the UK have all been from 2003 onwards.
Australia
The last decade was the hottest on record for Australia with the temperature almost 1C above
average and one third of a degree warmer than the previous decade, according to the (Bureau of Meteorology).
USA
The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998. (Climate.nasa.gov)
The temperature is rising across the globe and that is a scientific fact.
Well the explanation is straightforward.
Deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, increasing water vapor from warming ocean.
Add to that, ever increasing dark bitumen roads, dark roof tiles, too much concrete, etc.
We are warming the planet at an increasing rate.
You cannot debate the facts.
It is interesting to observe when these ten hottest years occured.
Canada
Nine of the ten warmest years have occurred during the last 25 years, with 2010 being the warmest
on record (3.0°C above the 1961 to 1990 reference value).
Please note: Canada like Europe is 3 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average temperature.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom recorded its hottest ever year in 2022, with an average temperature
of 10.03 degrees Celsius. Since the start of temperature recording in 1884, the 10 warmest years
recorded in the UK have all been from 2003 onwards.
Australia
The last decade was the hottest on record for Australia with the temperature almost 1C above
average and one third of a degree warmer than the previous decade, according to the (Bureau of Meteorology).
USA
The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998. (Climate.nasa.gov)
The temperature is rising across the globe and that is a scientific fact.
Well the explanation is straightforward.
Deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, increasing water vapor from warming ocean.
Add to that, ever increasing dark bitumen roads, dark roof tiles, too much concrete, etc.
We are warming the planet at an increasing rate.
You cannot debate the facts.
That does not mean destroy humanity to save the planet (which is already doomed). This is what the globalist elites are promoting. The earth was created for living creatures, and Climate Alarmism has already been debunked. The whole subject is far from cut-and-dried.
Refuting 12 claims by climate alarmists (published by a Senate committee)
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_...uting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf
National Institute of Biotechnology Information
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/
Hoover Institute
Flawed Climate Models
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
Nature Journal
Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00582-z
"Amid the growing enmeshment of politics with science, the adoption of a more adversarial stance to intervene in public debate is emerging as the preferred strategy by scientists involved in public outreach and dissemination activities, including but not limited to blogging."
If there was no hidden agenda, and science was truly science, we would know the truth. But today there are huge lies mixed with truth. The COVID19 situation illustrates this, where there was no science to support the destruction of people and economies.
Refuting 12 claims by climate alarmists (published by a Senate committee)
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_...uting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf
National Institute of Biotechnology Information
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/
Hoover Institute
Flawed Climate Models
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
Nature Journal
Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00582-z
"Amid the growing enmeshment of politics with science, the adoption of a more adversarial stance to intervene in public debate is emerging as the preferred strategy by scientists involved in public outreach and dissemination activities, including but not limited to blogging."
If there was no hidden agenda, and science was truly science, we would know the truth. But today there are huge lies mixed with truth. The COVID19 situation illustrates this, where there was no science to support the destruction of people and economies.
We need to also deal with the matter of the Net Zero Hoax to understand what is going on. Is the proposal to achieve Net Zero emissions practical or is it simply another hoax? Hardly anyone in any government has questioned the feasibility and validity of this concept, when everyone should have been asking “Is this some kind of globalist fantasy, or what, or is it just another tax grab?”
"NetZero was launched in October 1981. It was founded by Ronald T. Burr, Stacy Haitsuka, Marwan Zebian and Harold MacKenzie. The concept of net zero greenhouse gas emissions was first popularised by the Paris Agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions." And any time the UN is involved in anything, it spells harm and hurt.
What does Net Zero mean? Net-zero emissions or “net zero" means that all emissions released by human activities are reduced to zero or near zero, and counterbalanced by removing carbon from the atmosphere in a process known as carbon removal (which is probably another fantasy). That supposedly achieves a net zero increase in emissions.
"Achieving net zero will require a two-part approach: First and foremost, human-caused emissions (such as those from fossil-fueled vehicles and factories) should be reduced as close to zero as possible. Any remaining emissions should then be balanced with an equivalent amount of carbon removal, which can happen through natural approaches like restoring forests or through technologies like direct air capture and storage (DACS), which scrubs carbon directly from the atmosphere."
In other words every vehicle worldwide which uses gasoline must be junked to achieve this goal. Which means all transportation must come to a halt and everyone must go back to the stone age. And the idea that electric vehicles will stop emissions is crazy. In order to generate electricity one must either burn coal, or natural gas, or use nuclear energy, and they will all generate emissions far more than gasoline vehicles. Then every factory or manufacturing industry must be totally shut down, or else you will never achieve this goal. Once more you can go back to the stone age.
Can anyone see how stupid and nonsensical and evil this who impractical concept is? Yet the supposedly “most brilliant minds” have come up with this rubbish. Of course there are billions of dollars to be made in climate tax revenues which will not reduce emissions by even 1% but will enrich politicians.
And electric vehicles, and wind turbines have proven themselves to be more dangerous and harmful that gas driven vehicles. Entities which bought electric vehicles had to finally junk them and replace them with diesel or gasoline vehicles. And wind turbines did nothing except create hazards.
"NetZero was launched in October 1981. It was founded by Ronald T. Burr, Stacy Haitsuka, Marwan Zebian and Harold MacKenzie. The concept of net zero greenhouse gas emissions was first popularised by the Paris Agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions." And any time the UN is involved in anything, it spells harm and hurt.
What does Net Zero mean? Net-zero emissions or “net zero" means that all emissions released by human activities are reduced to zero or near zero, and counterbalanced by removing carbon from the atmosphere in a process known as carbon removal (which is probably another fantasy). That supposedly achieves a net zero increase in emissions.
"Achieving net zero will require a two-part approach: First and foremost, human-caused emissions (such as those from fossil-fueled vehicles and factories) should be reduced as close to zero as possible. Any remaining emissions should then be balanced with an equivalent amount of carbon removal, which can happen through natural approaches like restoring forests or through technologies like direct air capture and storage (DACS), which scrubs carbon directly from the atmosphere."
In other words every vehicle worldwide which uses gasoline must be junked to achieve this goal. Which means all transportation must come to a halt and everyone must go back to the stone age. And the idea that electric vehicles will stop emissions is crazy. In order to generate electricity one must either burn coal, or natural gas, or use nuclear energy, and they will all generate emissions far more than gasoline vehicles. Then every factory or manufacturing industry must be totally shut down, or else you will never achieve this goal. Once more you can go back to the stone age.
Can anyone see how stupid and nonsensical and evil this who impractical concept is? Yet the supposedly “most brilliant minds” have come up with this rubbish. Of course there are billions of dollars to be made in climate tax revenues which will not reduce emissions by even 1% but will enrich politicians.
And electric vehicles, and wind turbines have proven themselves to be more dangerous and harmful that gas driven vehicles. Entities which bought electric vehicles had to finally junk them and replace them with diesel or gasoline vehicles. And wind turbines did nothing except create hazards.
-
2
- Show all
Forests are actually increasing with the increase in CO2.
Pollution has decreased significantly since the 1970s except for China and India.
See pollution above
Ocean temperatures vary, and overall are not warmer. Water vapor also varies from year to year.
City square footage isn't significant enough to increase temperatures.
"We" are not. It's extremely arrogant to think "we" could influence the planet to such a great degree.
You refuse to "debate" the facts. You simply state what you believe they are and don't want to hear anything else. The "facts" are, the planet has been much hotter for most of its existence.
Climate change "science" is actually a religion, and their god is Gaia.
Pollution has decreased significantly since the 1970s except for China and India.
See pollution above
Ocean temperatures vary, and overall are not warmer. Water vapor also varies from year to year.
City square footage isn't significant enough to increase temperatures.
"We" are not. It's extremely arrogant to think "we" could influence the planet to such a great degree.
You refuse to "debate" the facts. You simply state what you believe they are and don't want to hear anything else. The "facts" are, the planet has been much hotter for most of its existence.
Climate change "science" is actually a religion, and their god is Gaia.
-
2
- Show all
And since many false gods demand human sacrifices, the sacrifices right now are ALL human beings (other than the priests of Gaia). These globalist elites fly around the world in their private jets polluting the atmosphere and talking about a fake Climate Emergency, then demand the total destruction of everything that sustains life on earth at this point. That is exactly what Net Zero demands.
-
1
- Show all
There is a list of countries with sufficient air pollution to directly impact the
life expectancy of it's citizens. There are 165 countries listed that fall into this
category. (wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_air_pollution)
By the way, the country with the highest air pollution is Bangladesh not India.
The clothes your wearing are probably made in Bangladesh.
An easy way to understand global air pollution is everyone is polluting the
atmosphere. Except for most islands, and a few countries: Ireland, Sweden,
Norway and Finland.
How about we consider just one air pollutant called methane.
The countries that emit the highest levels of methane are India, China, Brazil,
Russia, and the USA. The big five offenders!
Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2),
accounting for about 16 percent of global emissions. Methane is more than 28 times
as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Over the last two centuries,
methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to
human-related activities. Because methane is both a powerful greenhouse gas and short-lived
compared to carbon dioxide, achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and
significant effect on atmospheric warming potential.
The world's air pollution is going up not down.
And those five countries above are the main culprits when it comes to air pollution and methane emissions.
life expectancy of it's citizens. There are 165 countries listed that fall into this
category. (wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_air_pollution)
By the way, the country with the highest air pollution is Bangladesh not India.
The clothes your wearing are probably made in Bangladesh.
An easy way to understand global air pollution is everyone is polluting the
atmosphere. Except for most islands, and a few countries: Ireland, Sweden,
Norway and Finland.
How about we consider just one air pollutant called methane.
The countries that emit the highest levels of methane are India, China, Brazil,
Russia, and the USA. The big five offenders!
Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2),
accounting for about 16 percent of global emissions. Methane is more than 28 times
as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Over the last two centuries,
methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to
human-related activities. Because methane is both a powerful greenhouse gas and short-lived
compared to carbon dioxide, achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and
significant effect on atmospheric warming potential.
The world's air pollution is going up not down.
And those five countries above are the main culprits when it comes to air pollution and methane emissions.
So forests are increasing?
According to the new data, gathered by the University of Maryland, the tropics lost 10% more
primary rainforest in 2022 than in 2021, with just over 4m hectares (nearly 16,000 sq miles)
felled or burned in total. This released an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to the
annual fossil fuel emissions of India.
(bbc.com/news/science-environment-66013854)
The tropics lost 10% primary rainforest in one year. That is a staggering number.
I struggle to believe that much forest in the tropics could be felled in one year.
According to the new data, gathered by the University of Maryland, the tropics lost 10% more
primary rainforest in 2022 than in 2021, with just over 4m hectares (nearly 16,000 sq miles)
felled or burned in total. This released an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to the
annual fossil fuel emissions of India.
(bbc.com/news/science-environment-66013854)
The tropics lost 10% primary rainforest in one year. That is a staggering number.
I struggle to believe that much forest in the tropics could be felled in one year.
-
1
- Show all
And man, because they can't control their lust for money and places like China and others where they want America to do what they won't, it is stupid. FYI I live in Oakland Homless and deug use and human waste in the street left unchecked has done more harm than trying to make me and other pay for fake climate control rules. Do you those wind mills caused more environmental pollution than gas cars.
Hello CSI.
I would think that one would need to know whether the temperature around
the world is going up or not. A solution for a changing climate is another
matter altogether. There is a powerful difference between these two subjects.
If the temperature is actually rising worldwide then that is a serious problem
that we need to address. Yet, internal or external national, or world events,
or even political events, may have a much higher priority.
The USA is at the crossroads now and it's future as the major power in the
world is at stake. Perhaps even the US economy is under direct threat from
foreign powers.
I can understand that a US citizen has been observing over the last two decades
that even the fabric of US society. Is in tatters, the structure of the workplace
is changing fast. Life twenty years ago was better and forty years ago was much
greater than life in the USA today.
Surely you can understand that someone in Gaza, Ukraine, or even Russia. Has
no time for small talk about climate change. I understand that.
That is why the five super powers will continue with business as usual.
These five nations do not have any other choice to make. They generate
the greatest waste, the highest pollution, and they need the cheapest
resources. No one can stop these nations from doing what they have been
doing for decades.
To talk about climate change is an utter waste of time. That is why we
cannot stop climate change and we are accelerating a changing climate.
I knew more than a decade ago that a real solution for climate change
was never possible. In fact, we were twenty to thirty years too late to
slow down climate change, in any significant way.
You can accept climate change is happening, which it is. Then choose
to ignore a national response to that threat. That's fine, almost every other
country in the world is doing the same. Simply because a deep alteration
to power generation from coal and oil, to solar, wind, nuclear, is expensive.
So many countries in colder climates cannot employ solar or even wind power
generation. What do they do, you tell me.
Seventy five percent of the world's nations cannot afford to go green.
Climate change is merely an interesting topic to discuss.
By the way, neither the Democrats or Republicans can rescue the US from
it's downward spiral. The competition between nations now is reaching fever pitch.
These nations today are aggressive and determined to hold on to their wealth
and power. It is fundamental human nature to wave the flag and they all do it.
Hold onto your chair because it's going to get a lot tougher for us all, as time
goes by. We were destined for this.
I would think that one would need to know whether the temperature around
the world is going up or not. A solution for a changing climate is another
matter altogether. There is a powerful difference between these two subjects.
If the temperature is actually rising worldwide then that is a serious problem
that we need to address. Yet, internal or external national, or world events,
or even political events, may have a much higher priority.
The USA is at the crossroads now and it's future as the major power in the
world is at stake. Perhaps even the US economy is under direct threat from
foreign powers.
I can understand that a US citizen has been observing over the last two decades
that even the fabric of US society. Is in tatters, the structure of the workplace
is changing fast. Life twenty years ago was better and forty years ago was much
greater than life in the USA today.
Surely you can understand that someone in Gaza, Ukraine, or even Russia. Has
no time for small talk about climate change. I understand that.
That is why the five super powers will continue with business as usual.
These five nations do not have any other choice to make. They generate
the greatest waste, the highest pollution, and they need the cheapest
resources. No one can stop these nations from doing what they have been
doing for decades.
To talk about climate change is an utter waste of time. That is why we
cannot stop climate change and we are accelerating a changing climate.
I knew more than a decade ago that a real solution for climate change
was never possible. In fact, we were twenty to thirty years too late to
slow down climate change, in any significant way.
You can accept climate change is happening, which it is. Then choose
to ignore a national response to that threat. That's fine, almost every other
country in the world is doing the same. Simply because a deep alteration
to power generation from coal and oil, to solar, wind, nuclear, is expensive.
So many countries in colder climates cannot employ solar or even wind power
generation. What do they do, you tell me.
Seventy five percent of the world's nations cannot afford to go green.
Climate change is merely an interesting topic to discuss.
By the way, neither the Democrats or Republicans can rescue the US from
it's downward spiral. The competition between nations now is reaching fever pitch.
These nations today are aggressive and determined to hold on to their wealth
and power. It is fundamental human nature to wave the flag and they all do it.
Hold onto your chair because it's going to get a lot tougher for us all, as time
goes by. We were destined for this.
Where there is no scientific evidence available to deny climate change. Then
there can be no debate. It is akin to standing in a courtroom and making claims
without any evidence. You will be dismissed, you have no case.
Just ask a qualified meteorologist whether the temperature has been rising.
That is what they do, that is their job, to analyze temperature statistics.
Meteorology is not a conspiracy, nor is geology, or biology.
Climate change is not a conspiracy but people with an agenda can use
climate change as a weapon. But the temperature measurements are
precise and reliable.
there can be no debate. It is akin to standing in a courtroom and making claims
without any evidence. You will be dismissed, you have no case.
Just ask a qualified meteorologist whether the temperature has been rising.
That is what they do, that is their job, to analyze temperature statistics.
Meteorology is not a conspiracy, nor is geology, or biology.
Climate change is not a conspiracy but people with an agenda can use
climate change as a weapon. But the temperature measurements are
precise and reliable.
Observable science that measures temperature is not the enemy.
People that follow an ideology will use meteorology to advance their campaign.
Who ever that may be.
There is a difference between observable science and what those observations
are actually used for. There are climate change fanatics that use weather observations
to scare people. There are also climate change deniers that belong to the oil and coal
industries. They deny that the climate is changing and even if it is changing, it's not their
product causing the problem.
This, for or against, approach to climate change reaches all the way into federal politics.
One side will deny it and the other will affirm it.
The bottom line is that temperature is rising and that cannot be denied.
It's the cause of this climate change and that is where the real problem
begins.
India cannot afford climate change mitigation. India asked the UN for
a trillion dollars to address climate change. One country wants a trillion
dollars to begin climate change mitigation. Which countries in the world
can afford a trillion dollars for India?
There are I think 65 countries in Asia with insufficient funds to seriously
deal with their emissions. And one of these countries wants a trillion
dollars.
The truth is that our climate is changing but there is nothing we can do about
it. Just admit that the meteorologists are correct, the temperature is rising and has
been rising for decades. Tens of thousands of digital thermometers, satellites.
aircraft, ships, weather balloons, buoys. They are all correct and there is no debate.
People that follow an ideology will use meteorology to advance their campaign.
Who ever that may be.
There is a difference between observable science and what those observations
are actually used for. There are climate change fanatics that use weather observations
to scare people. There are also climate change deniers that belong to the oil and coal
industries. They deny that the climate is changing and even if it is changing, it's not their
product causing the problem.
This, for or against, approach to climate change reaches all the way into federal politics.
One side will deny it and the other will affirm it.
The bottom line is that temperature is rising and that cannot be denied.
It's the cause of this climate change and that is where the real problem
begins.
India cannot afford climate change mitigation. India asked the UN for
a trillion dollars to address climate change. One country wants a trillion
dollars to begin climate change mitigation. Which countries in the world
can afford a trillion dollars for India?
There are I think 65 countries in Asia with insufficient funds to seriously
deal with their emissions. And one of these countries wants a trillion
dollars.
The truth is that our climate is changing but there is nothing we can do about
it. Just admit that the meteorologists are correct, the temperature is rising and has
been rising for decades. Tens of thousands of digital thermometers, satellites.
aircraft, ships, weather balloons, buoys. They are all correct and there is no debate.