• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guardian: Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week

Visbek

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
23,282
Reaction score
18,292
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-high-temperatures-set-around-world-this-week

Algeria hit a record for high temperatures in all of Africa. Britain has its 3rd longest heatwave. Taiwan broke a record. Oman had 52 hours where the temperature did not drop below 107ºF. Siberia is 7ºC above normal, a condition which may melt more permafrost and release more methane (a greenhouse gas). California is breaking records.

The entire northern hemisphere is stuck in a heat wave.

All of this during an El Nina year, when temperatures are usually cooler.

 
Visbek said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-high-temperatures-set-around-world-this-week

Algeria hit a record for high temperatures in all of Africa. Britain has its 3rd longest heatwave. Taiwan broke a record. Oman had 52 hours where the temperature did not drop below 107ºF. Siberia is 7ºC above normal, a condition which may melt more permafrost and release more methane (a greenhouse gas). California is breaking records.

The entire northern hemisphere is stuck in a heat wave.

All of this during an El Nina year, when temperatures are usually cooler.

Click to expand...


It can't possibly be global warming. Trump has said that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to keep us from being competitive. If we can't believe Trump, who can we believe?

Besides, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of websites that attempt to disprove a scientific theory through cherry picking data and claiming that the world's scientific organizations are wrong. We'll no doubt see some of them cited right here in this very thread.
 
I'm glad a heat wave resulted in high temperatures. If it didn't, we'd be in a world of ****.
 
humbolt said:
I'm glad a heat wave resulted in high temperatures. If it didn't, we'd be in a world of ****.
Click to expand...
Try again.

Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week

Heat waves do not normally a) cover entire hemispheres and b) set record high temperatures. Nor is it normal (or good) to break high temperature records during an El Nina year.

Of course, with more warming, this will become a more common occurrence. That will be lots of fun.
 
Yep, the average global surface temperature has been increasing and can be correlated with both increased world population and increased CO2 emissions. Many wish to ignore the former and laser focus on the latter.

CO2 has increased over the last 100 years by about 33% while the global popualtion has almost doubled (increased by nearly 100%) during that same time period.

https://www.quora.com/How-have-leve...-the-atmosphere-changed-in-the-past-100-years

World Population Clock: 7.6 Billion People (2018) - Worldometers
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
Try again.

Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week

Heat waves do not normally a) cover entire hemispheres and b) set record high temperatures. Nor is it normal (or good) to break high temperature records during an El Nina year.

Of course, with more warming, this will become a more common occurrence. That will be lots of fun.
Click to expand...

Records are broken all the time all over the globe for all kinds of weather events. While they may attract momentary attention, nothing outside of the range of weather events we call normal has occurred. What constitutes normal is always in a state of flux anyway. Our understanding of what causes shifts in climate is in it's infancy, so I'm not about to jump to conclusions. You can if you like.
 
humbolt said:
Records are broken all the time all over the globe for all kinds of weather events. While they may attract momentary attention, nothing outside of the range of weather events we call normal has occurred. What constitutes normal is always in a state of flux anyway. Our understanding of what causes shifts in climate is in it's infancy, so I'm not about to jump to conclusions. You can if you like.
Click to expand...

Actual scientists disagree with you:

"Human fingerprint" on California's blistering heat wave

“When we look around the world at record hot events we find there’s already a human fingerprint at 80% of the events where we have observational records.”

— Noah Diffenbaugh, Stanford University climate scientist

“The reality is when it comes to heatwaves now there’s almost always a human fingerprint. One of the clearest consequences of global warming is more heat, higher temperatures.”

— Daniel Swain, climate scientist at UCLA
 
Visbek said:
The entire northern hemisphere is stuck in a heat wave.

All of this during an El Nina year, when temperatures are usually cooler.
Click to expand...

Lucky for us it is cooler.



Here in Virginia, in the northern hemisphere, it's cooler than normal today.

But I'm glad you featured Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, the greatest of the 1960's girl groups.
 
Surface Detail said:
Actual scientists disagree with you:

"Human fingerprint" on California's blistering heat wave

“When we look around the world at record hot events we find there’s already a human fingerprint at 80% of the events where we have observational records.”

— Noah Diffenbaugh, Stanford University climate scientist

“The reality is when it comes to heatwaves now there’s almost always a human fingerprint. One of the clearest consequences of global warming is more heat, higher temperatures.”

— Daniel Swain, climate scientist at UCLA
Click to expand...

And actual scientists agree with me, as well.
 
late said:
Scientist have been finding that since the 70s.
Click to expand...

Finding what? All manner of conflicting information? I find opposing views, and the actual record, to be more convincing. I also find the fear mongering of some rabid AGW fans to be more than indicative that the skeptics have a good case. They're fighting a strong headwind of bureaucratic dogmatism, and holding their own quite nicely.
 
late said:
DARPA and secret Big Oil research both found AGW in the 70s. That hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

And we've found that AGW is not the force we might have thought since. Seems there are other factors in play that are perhaps more significant in determining the direction of the earth's climate.
 
late said:
Not what scientists are saying..
Click to expand...

Not what some scientists are saying. If Co2 is a problem, and it might be to some extent, it's clearly not of the magnitude claimed. The models, and that's what we have - climate models - are flawed. One doesn't have to be a climate scientist to realize that, or we'd all have cooked a decade ago. We didn't, and we aren't now.
 
humbolt said:
Not what some scientists are saying. If Co2 is a problem, and it might be to some extent, it's clearly not of the magnitude claimed. The models, and that's what we have - climate models - are flawed. One doesn't have to be a climate scientist to realize that, or we'd all have cooked a decade ago. We didn't, and we aren't now.
Click to expand...

In your opinion.
Opinions aren't worth a lot against a scientific theory.
 
Dittohead not! said:
In your opinion.
Opinions aren't worth a lot against a scientific theory.
Click to expand...

Some scientists have offered the view I mentioned. I'm simply endorsing it. I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a scientist. I don't have to be a scientist to have an opinion, and since I'm not doing the research myself, I rely on the views of those who do, and not all of climate science agrees with AGW as it is presented to the public.
 
humbolt said:
Some scientists have offered the view I mentioned. I'm simply endorsing it. I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a scientist. I don't have to be a scientist to have an opinion, and since I'm not doing the research myself, I rely on the views of those who do, and not all of climate science agrees with AGW as it is presented to the public.
Click to expand...

Every scientific organization in the world subscribes to the AGW theory. There are a few individuals, mostly not climatologists, who have a differing viewpoint, but most of the opposition is from bloggers. The thing is, there is no competing theory.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Every scientific organization in the world subscribes to the AGW theory. There are a few individuals, mostly not climatologists, who have a differing viewpoint, but most of the opposition is from bloggers. The thing is, there is no competing theory.
Click to expand...

But lots of propaganda, which is what see here.
 
I asked an airconditioning repairman and he said its so hot because its summer
 
Dittohead not! said:
Every scientific organization in the world subscribes to the AGW theory. There are a few individuals, mostly not climatologists, who have a differing viewpoint, but most of the opposition is from bloggers. The thing is, there is no competing theory.
Click to expand...

Solar/GCR. Professor Henrik Svensmark. Professor Nir Shaviv.
 
humbolt said:
Not what some scientists are saying. If Co2 is a problem, and it might be to some extent, it's clearly not of the magnitude claimed. The models, and that's what we have - climate models - are flawed. One doesn't have to be a climate scientist to realize that, or we'd all have cooked a decade ago. We didn't, and we aren't now.
Click to expand...
Very few scientists agree with anything remotely like what you're saying.

There is broad recognition of the uncertainties. Climate scientists know there will be variability in the effects of climate change, and add allowances for processes we do not currently understand. Further, much of that uncertainty and variability is not about the physical effects, but what humans will do over the next century.

The models are also in the right ballpark. The 30th anniversary of Hansen's major 1998 paper just passed, and there was a lot of public review of his predictions. His biggest miss was that he overestimated the amounts of radiative forcing; when we adjust for that, and use the exact same model he used in 1998, the numbers are pretty much spot on. So we can say that Hansen's 1998 model is "flawed" -- and that we've fixed the primary flaw.

And of course, that is just one 30 year old model. Overall, the actual temperatures have been pretty much right up the middle of the range of different predictions.
 
Visbek said:
Very few scientists agree with anything remotely like what you're saying.

There is broad recognition of the uncertainties. Climate scientists know there will be variability in the effects of climate change, and add allowances for processes we do not currently understand. Further, much of that uncertainty and variability is not about the physical effects, but what humans will do over the next century.

The models are also in the right ballpark. The 30th anniversary of Hansen's major 1998 paper just passed, and there was a lot of public review of his predictions. His biggest miss was that he overestimated the amounts of radiative forcing; when we adjust for that, and use the exact same model he used in 1998, the numbers are pretty much spot on. So we can say that Hansen's 1998 model is "flawed" -- and that we've fixed the primary flaw.

And of course, that is just one 30 year old model. Overall, the actual temperatures have been pretty much right up the middle of the range of different predictions.
Click to expand...

". . . Climate modelers will object that this explanation doesn’t fit the theories about climate change. But those were the theories Hansen used, and they don’t fit the data. The bottom line is, climate science as encoded in the models is far from settled."

[h=2]The Hansen forecasts 30 years later[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on July 3, 2018 by curryja | 228 comments[/FONT]
by Ross McKitrick and John Christy
Note: this is a revised version to correct the statement about CFCs and methane in Scenario B.
How accurate were James Hansen’s 1988 testimony and subsequent JGR article forecasts of global warming? According to a laudatory article by AP’s Seth Borenstein, they “pretty much” came true, with other scientists claiming their accuracy was “astounding” and “incredible.” Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue in the Wall Street Journal, and Calvin Beisner in the Daily Caller, disputed this.
Continue reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom