Observations, especially those that are 'correct', as you so graciously point out, draw no conclusion. I'm merely drawing attention to the fact that should a Summer season in the Northern hemisphere be 4 - 5 degrees above average every 'Chicken Little' in the press would be screaming "The Sky is Falling", no matter the reason. Turn about is fair play.

You might do better to pay more attention to what SCIENTISTS say about science than what the PRESS says about science. The coser you go back to the source, the better the information.

Good Lord! What an insightful addition to the discussion, lol.

Maybe we should hear some more from Professor Simon Carn...
...

Why not - the three 'nitter' posts are indicative of the fact that even highly energetic volcanic eruptions seldom have more than a three year span effecting global cooling. In and of themselves a singular eruption is not a lasting factor in 'climate change.' I, by the way, follow both he and the highly respected geophysicist, Prof. Peter Ward whose theories Carn denigrates at nitter post two.

Ward's papers center on the effects, he believes, that ultraviolet-B radiation combined with chlorine and bromine released by relatively low energy, high basaltic flow eruptions have on the ozone layer. Ward is not a climate change denier, he just has different theories for the cause and he often champions alternative energy sources, as do I.

I just believe in looking at all the evidence including a possibly cooling Antarctic, an unknown amount of methane being released from the ocean floor, and other possible factors instead of centering on CO2. What role do low level emissions of SO2, CO2, methane, chlorine and bromine have on the climate - high, low, none, synergistic? I don't know and I don't believe 'Science' as yet knows with certainty.


https://www.mtu.edu/news/2017/03/vol...ide-space.html
"“Many people may not realize that volcanoes are continuously releasing quite large amounts of gas, and may do so for decades or even centuries,” says volcanologist Simon Carn, an associate professor of geological and mining engineering and sciences at Michigan Tech, and the lead author of the new study. “Because the daily emissions are smaller than a big eruption, the effect of a single plume may not seem noticeable, but the cumulative effect of all volcanoes can be significant. In fact, on average, volcanoes release most of their gas when they’re not erupting.”"

"Another notable feature apparent in the map of Indonesian SO2 sources is that some regions show lower emissions or an absence of subaerial SO2 degassing, despite the presence of numerous Holocene volcanoes; e.g., southern Sumatra and the western Lesser Sunda Islands (Fig. 1). It is perhaps no coincidence that the latter region is the location of several volcanoes responsible for large SO2-rich explosive eruptions (linked to significant climate impacts5) including Agung (1963)45, Samalas (1257)46 and Tambora (1815)47."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep...UFNPHDU1ff9Hkv

Missing sources and global volcanic CO2 emissions. Inevitably, an undetermined number of weaker SO2 sources, populating the tail of global SO2 flux distribution (Fig. 4), are missing from the inventory. [ibid]

"As a final point, the inventory demonstrates the remarkable persistence of passive volcanic degassing, and as anthropogenic SO2 emissions continue to steadily decline, the volcanic contribution to atmospheric sulfur loading will inexorably increase."

At first I thought you were trolling but now it looks worse - it looks like you believe some of this stuff. Despite inexorably melting ice, inexorably rising sea levels, you're putting upa case that we're not really warming the world. The wisest words in Science weren't written by a scientist at all:
Now I'm not going to argue with you, Mjolnir, I really don't care to debate what you think. But you've put up 9 of the last 15 posts which clearly gives the lie to you saying you've no point to make. This time I'm requesting you don't lie to us. What's your agenda? What's your point?

Instead of throwing out ad hominem attacks why don't you actually read what I post:

"Hazel I have no trouble admitting the World seems to be heating up" https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6300060

"Climate change is real but I contend that there are many as yet poorly understood factors besides what 'Man' has introduced into the environment in the last 150 years." https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6300119

My first post wasn't addressed to anyone, I simply posted a seldom covered story by the media about a huge statistical variance in temperature over a very expansive chunk of land. This, in a thread that long since abandoned the original intent of the OP, 'triggered' you and others because (1) it talked about colder temperatures and (2) it didn't adhere to the narrative that CO2 and Man's generation of it are the only factors in climate change.
I really could care less what you and others think - there's a simple cure, if you don't like what I post don't respond to it!

Of the climate scientists in the world 99.92% confirm that climate change is real. All but about four of those also confirm that the major factor in the last several hundred years in industrialization: a human factor. That ARE other factors, but the one that made the big difference and the accelerating and lasting trend is industrial age man.

That no longer matters. Argue it as you will, it does not matter. What matters is that we get control of ENOUGH factors to save human life on this planet, or we do not. Taking effective action is now far more critical than why we have to do so.

On Topic: This might help address some of the issues raised here
https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/1...-unprecedented

@mjolnir: There was no ad hominem, I simply called you out. You're suddenly coming into this thread, making more posts than all other members combined and yet asserting you have nothing to say?

Of course there was - you intimated that I was lying. My first post was addressed at no one. Most of the rest of my posts were responses to posts directed at me. Had you not been triggered by a post that was not lockstep with your own viewpoints it's probable I wouldn't have posted again in this now 'catch-all' thread until I found something I deemed newsworthy. I re-iterate - if you don't like what I post don't respond to me and not expect a reaction.

Agreed which is why I'll be buying an all electric pickup truck as soon as I see they have worked out the inevitable 'kinks.'

I think you might find the actual numbers of the amounts of particulate and gaseous materials contributed by Natural vs. Man-Made interesting.

For those who think palm oil is cool.

I mostly agree with you here, but...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Meanwhile, going off around my ears locally is COP26, which ends today. Going by promises, we are headed for about 2.4ºC = 4.32ºF which is distinctly nasty territory. I'm thoroughly sick of hearing about it at this stage. This is a paper from 2010 (I think) exploring the climate scenarios for 2ºC & 4ºC. It's a little soon to get a paper tailored to the exact figure the leaders promised, but also it's a pretty pointless exercise, as nobody expects those promises to be kept.

If you look at what they are planning to mine or otherwise produce/consume, we are much closer to the 4ºC mark, which is tragic for those caught in it. It's also bad for those who have to watch, wanting to help, but able to do nothing.