Slashdot Mirror
All-time Heat Records Are Being Set All Over the World (washingtonpost.com)
As the U.K. begins a two-week heat wave, one pedestrian apparently found his leg sinking into tarmac, which had melted, requiring a call to emergency rescue services.
"All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week," reports the Washington Post, in an article titled "Red-Hot Planet," which they've updated throughout the week with new all-time heat records. From the normally mild summer climes of Ireland, Scotland and Canada to the scorching Middle East to Southern California, numerous locations in the Northern Hemisphere have witnessed their hottest weather ever recorded over the past week.... The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the heat is to blame for at least 54 deaths in southern Quebec, mostly in and near Montreal, which endured record high temperatures. In Northern Siberia, along the coast of the Arctic Ocean -- where weather observations are scarce -- model analyses showed temperatures soaring 40 degrees above normal on July 5, to over 90 degrees...
On Thursday, Africa likely witnessed its hottest temperature ever reliably measured. Ouargla, Algeria soared to 124.3 degrees (51.3 Celsius). If verified, it would surpass Africa's previous highest reliable temperature measurement of 123.3 degrees (50.7 Celsius) set July 13, 1961, in Morocco. No single record, in isolation, can be attributed to global warming. But collectively, these heat records are consistent with the kind of extremes we expect to see increase in a warming world.
Nasdaq Inc. even warned customers that high humidity in New Jersey was slowing the radio transmissions needed for high-speed trading, according to an article shared by Slashdot reader narcoossee. And Southern California has also experienced record-setting temperatures "well above 110 degrees across the region," sparking brush fires that burned homes in two counties.
Last July several U.S. cities experienced their hottest month ever, including Reno, Salt Lake City, and Miami. And Death Valley, California maintained an average temperature of 107.4 degrees for an entire month, the hottest month ever recorded on earth. "The temperature didn't fall below 89 degrees at any point in the month of July at Death Valley," reports the Washington Post, adding "On three nights, the 'low' temperature was 102-103 degrees."
And last month the Middle East city Quriyat (in Oman) endured more than two full days in which the temperature never dropped below 108.7 degrees.
"All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week," reports the Washington Post, in an article titled "Red-Hot Planet," which they've updated throughout the week with new all-time heat records. From the normally mild summer climes of Ireland, Scotland and Canada to the scorching Middle East to Southern California, numerous locations in the Northern Hemisphere have witnessed their hottest weather ever recorded over the past week.... The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the heat is to blame for at least 54 deaths in southern Quebec, mostly in and near Montreal, which endured record high temperatures. In Northern Siberia, along the coast of the Arctic Ocean -- where weather observations are scarce -- model analyses showed temperatures soaring 40 degrees above normal on July 5, to over 90 degrees...
On Thursday, Africa likely witnessed its hottest temperature ever reliably measured. Ouargla, Algeria soared to 124.3 degrees (51.3 Celsius). If verified, it would surpass Africa's previous highest reliable temperature measurement of 123.3 degrees (50.7 Celsius) set July 13, 1961, in Morocco. No single record, in isolation, can be attributed to global warming. But collectively, these heat records are consistent with the kind of extremes we expect to see increase in a warming world.
Nasdaq Inc. even warned customers that high humidity in New Jersey was slowing the radio transmissions needed for high-speed trading, according to an article shared by Slashdot reader narcoossee. And Southern California has also experienced record-setting temperatures "well above 110 degrees across the region," sparking brush fires that burned homes in two counties.
Last July several U.S. cities experienced their hottest month ever, including Reno, Salt Lake City, and Miami. And Death Valley, California maintained an average temperature of 107.4 degrees for an entire month, the hottest month ever recorded on earth. "The temperature didn't fall below 89 degrees at any point in the month of July at Death Valley," reports the Washington Post, adding "On three nights, the 'low' temperature was 102-103 degrees."
And last month the Middle East city Quriyat (in Oman) endured more than two full days in which the temperature never dropped below 108.7 degrees.
Accepted dogma says this cannot be climate change. Or if it is, it cannot be human made. Rationality is irrelevant.
Well, fuckers, it is going to kill you or at least your children just the same, no matter how much you deny it.
And here I am, freezing by arse off down here in New Zealand where it's cold, went and windy and I've had a cold for over a month now.
Throw some of that heat down this way guys!
This must have been posted by the EPA as proof that global warming/climate change is a hoax.
Shut up Hudson.
Sometimes I seriously wonder whether those dumb comments are: a. misspelled intentionally, or b. from somebody without a decent education, or c. from a non-native troll.
Exxon knew this as far back as the 1970s. They had the best climate science back then. They had a decision to make. They chose this. Now we'll all have to suffer the consequences for the sake of Exxon's greed and indifference.
The interesting statistics is the ratio of cold and hot records. If the trend in your noisy data is absent, you'd expect cold and hot records to be set at roughtly 1:1, regardless of your history of measurements. In reality, it currently looks like this.
Ezekiel 23:20
Uma delicia
He should do what obongo did.
Let BP ruin the gulf, then several years later let them lease areas to drill for oil like nothing happened.
Thanks obongo.
It's not news if it doesn't contain any BS.
Actually he is quoting Ralph Wiggum. The original quote was "me fail English. That's unpossible."
There are lots of studies estimating just how bad climate change may get if global temperatures go up by X degrees, or Y degrees, or Z degrees by the year 2050, or 2100 or beyond. One problem with these predictive studies, however, is that nobody actually KNOWS with any certainty how climate will behave once you cross a certain temperature treshold that may exist and that we may not be aware of at all. Some experts say "As long as we can keep warming below 2 degrees C by the year 2100, the worst effects should be mitigated". Except that a climate system this huge and this complex and potentially this poorly understood cannot be accurately simulated on any existing supercomputer we have anywhere in the world today. We may find that in just a few years - maybe 2025, maybe 2030, maybe 2035 - we cross an "invisible temperature line" after which seriously catastrophic weather events start to occur all over the world with a severity and ferocity that nobody thought was possible, and that nobody can do anything whatsoever to mitigate, unless someone invents an actually working "weather control" technology in the next 10 years or so. Meteorologists can usually predict large scale weather events/problems a few days ahead of time today. But if the behavior of the entire system shifts and destabilizes in idiosyncratic ways, you may find that really scary weather events materialize in places where they have never happened before, and without anyone being able to foresee where and when the event will occur. Imagine a world where on a perfectly normal day, a Superstorm suddenly builds, and you have maybe 30 minutes of warning time before it hits where you are.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
(A tip: if you're going to measure temperature trends, don't put vehicles and buildings right next to your instruments...)
What if the objective was to create hype about record temperatures in order to advance a political agenda? Then where would we locate our instruments?
I'm Scottish and my father was, until recently retiring, a farmer. In the last decade of his farming he struggled to make any hay in the summer.
It had previously been tricky but do-able in the 4 decades prior to that. If you farm you notice climate change.
Now it's like it's "flipped" completely. Making hay this year should be easy if it hasn't dried out too much and the grass has grown.
The bit that's missing in this post is that the UK, and Scotland in particular, had one of the coldest winters on record. More snow than they've seen in decades.
It's as if the weather that north eastern Europe normally gets has shifted over west.
The gulf stream that normally warms N.Europe in winters and keeps it wet in summer is in flux.
I fully expect the UK will get a freezing winter in return for this recording setting summer if this continues.
Take a look at the rain and flooding in France and Spain that's also going on right now. Very unusual and abnormal.
Of course it's all "fake news" to those who feel this is an Inconvenient Truth.
I've heard of single incidents such as the ones you mentioned, but to say that they represent most of the record measurements seems hyperbole. What is your source?
I'm reading that as saw 124.3 degrees and though holy fuck, that was on Earth, not some other planet? My browser width was just right (wrong) that real number, 51.3 Celsius, was on the next line. That sounds more real, yea, just that one country on the planet who still donesn't know how to measure temperature yet. Guess I should be glad they bother to put Celsius at all. Wait spoke too soon, only 25% of the temperatures had conversions. I'm going to dig out a conversion tool just to read this, nope, have whinge instead.
Ok, I get it "The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it." but at least put some F's after those numbers so we know they are USA only numbers, not international standard!
Yea, go on score me down as a troll, my karma score can handle it and after decades of dealing with this rubbish I feel the need to bitch occasionally.
And the guy who sunk into the tarmac just happened to be carelessly testing his now flamethrower at the time. And clearly the highs in Ireland are nothinb more than the result of pranking leprechauns running around sticking all the thermometers in buckets of hot water. As they are known to do.
Well, yes, they put the sensors right outside the White House, oblivious to the effect all the hot air produced there would have.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Freedom Air! I like that. I recommend we start calling all ACs "Freedom Airs"!
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Actually he is quoting Ralph Wiggum. The original quote was "me fail English. That's unpossible."
Actually, Unpossible is the sanctioned word in Newspeak.
Rogue ice cream truck engines next to measurement stations doesn't convincingly explain the sudden two weeks of consistently higher-than-average temperature all across the UK, nor the deluge of heat records specifically during May in Fennoscandia (in Swedish, but you can still get the gist from the pretty pictures).
You can't dismiss all ground weather stations' data because of a few anomalies when that data is still corroborated by other sources, such as satellite measurements -- It's not intellectually honest. Find an alternative theory that can explain all the previous data and predict future trends better than anthropogenic climate change.
https://public.wmo.int/en/medi...
This is my source, with citations, although not necessarily the GP's:
(countries emphasized by me)
WMO uses datasets (based on monthly climatological data from observing sites) from the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom.
It also uses reanalysis datasets from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts and its Copernicus Climate Change Service, and the Japan Meteorological Agency. This method combines millions of meteorological and marine observations, including from satellites, with models to produce a complete reanalysis of the atmosphere. The combination of observations with models makes it possible to estimate temperatures at any time and in any place across the globe, even in data-sparse areas such as the polar regions.
As the U.K. begins a two-week heat wave
What are you talking about ? it's been two weeks already! and it looks to keep on going.
Probably cold patch asphalt.
Have gnu, will travel.
Hi, thanks for the interesting press release. I was however asking GP for a source on the claim that bad data was behind most of the heat records. In hindsight I should have made myself more clear on that.
Actually, "normal climate variability" or "a heat wave" explains it nicely.
High daytime temps are NOT part of the catastrophic AGW prediction set, you know. The theory is that NIGHTTIME temps will increase, not daytime, so the overall average goes up.
And when they talk about "consistently higher" temps, they're literally talking about fractions of a degree in most cases.
By the way - there have been a few surveys of weather stations, and the vast majority of them have problems, mostly caused by either encroaching cities (the Urban Heat Island effect) or bad instrument siting. Very, very few stations have consistent records, with relatively untouched siting. The ones that do? Well, they don't show the AGW trend that the others do... and the response by AGW scientists is to adjust the ones that aren't showing the increase (AKA "throwing out the good data so the bad data looks better").
Try this site, for a bit of data that will shock you...
http://www.surfacestations.org/
It's worse than that, the climate scientists and the deep state, sorry "Deep State", have a secret agency, members of which travel the world sabotaging climate sensors in order to protect their continuing access to taxpayers' money.
Where they can gain access to the sensors (through the secret brotherhood) they will calibrate them to show warmer temperatures. Otherwise they will park airplanes or ice cream trucks or barbecues next to them or start forest fires, or pay homeless people or persuade cats to sleep on them.
The idea of balance is a philosophy not science.
We don’t have antigravity to oppose gravity.
The mass of proton is much larger then the electron. There seems to be more matter in the universe then antimatter.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Todos seremos morenos bajo el Sol.
(there is not english-translation of the above phrase)
Google translate says it means "We will all be dark under the Sun."
Seems to me that a creepy irony survived the translation.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Actually, "normal climate variability" or "a heat wave" explains it nicely.
That's very unspecific, and goes against climate scientists' overwhelming consensus, specifically that recent calculations concludes that the Earth is warming orders of magnitude faster than from natural forces. Neither "normal climate variability" nor "heat waves" seems to account for past data, nor is able to predict future trends better than AGW.
High daytime temps are NOT part of the catastrophic AGW prediction set, you know. The theory is that NIGHTTIME temps will increase, not daytime, so the overall average goes up.
And when they talk about "consistently higher" temps, they're literally talking about fractions of a degree in most cases.
I couldn't find a source that only night temperatures will increase -- what's yours? The closest I could find was this article explaining why night-time temperatures are warming faster than day-time temperatures. They're both still warming though.
By the way - there have been a few surveys of weather stations, and the vast majority of them have problems, mostly caused by either encroaching cities (the Urban Heat Island effect) or bad instrument siting. Very, very few stations have consistent records, with relatively untouched siting. The ones that do? Well, they don't show the AGW trend that the others do... and the response by AGW scientists is to adjust the ones that aren't showing the increase (AKA "throwing out the good data so the bad data looks better").
Try this site, for a bit of data that will shock you...
http://www.surfacestations.org/
You do not take into account how that data is used and verified. A quick search presents convincing skeptical arguments that these measurements are still reliable as a whole, as they show the same corroborating trends whether they're urban or rural, or lumped into random groups (which would emphasize any inaccuracies from placement of stations):
https://skepticalscience.com/s...
https://skepticalscience.com/B...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (5 min video -- UQx DENIAL101x 2.4.1.1v2 Building a robust temperature record)
The only people I have seen deny climate change are the AGW idiots who think the climate has ever been stable, and who demand global action to try to put it into some sort of climatic stasis.
The rest of us have always accepted the SCIENTIFIC FACTS that:
(a) The Earth's climate has always changed and always will.
(b) The Earth's climate is EXTREMELY COMPLEX and cannot currently be accurately modeled in a computer.
(c) While humans, like EVERYTHING ELSE, have SOME effects on climate, there are plenty of other causes of change including many we probably do not know/understand. Some of these other sources, like the sun, have a far greater impact than humans.
(d) The Earth has been both significantly hotter and extremely cold many times in the past before there were enough humans to have had ANY effect on any of those previously very extreme changes.
We ALSO embrace things like the laws of economics, the record of human history, and accept basic human nature - so we:
(a) Believe humans will continue to advance technologically and thus we as a species become better able to deal with climate change with every passing decade, making it retrograde to go nuts trying to offset it now - even if we could, and if we could afford it, and if its happening.
(b) Know that far more people are dying today from other sources than from climate, and that reducing some of the deaths and suffering of people TODAY is achieved using some of those fossil fuels people like you want eliminated or made too expensive because YOU claim it will save some future persons from some imagined future horror.
(c) WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN before we implement policies that have a negative impact on the lives of millions of people in the name of "solving" the supposed problem. In fact, we'd like to not only see the problem PROVEN to exist, but we also want to see that the proposed solution will actually work, will be the most cost-effective option, and will have the least impact upon the lives and liberty of the people who are alive today.
So... who are the REAL "deniers"? You guys need to drop the quasi-religious fervor-driven propaganda and start persuading with REAL SCIENCE and not with slogans, bitter accusations, suppression of persons with opposed opinions, rigging of the peer review and paper publishing business, data hiding, data manipulation, etc. Your side could make a tiny start by dropping the "denier" and "paid for by big oil" accusations and not hurling expletives like ornery pubescent teenagers.
I've lived in the US South or Hawaii my whole life. Legs don't sink into the tarmac. Does the UK use toffee for paving? The worst I've seen is that the bus lanes get pressed a bit. People don't just sink. No way is the UK hot like it is where I live.
That's a strange expression, Bruce.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
There may have been a void under the tarmac, but it still had to be pretty damned soft for him to step through it. Likewise in the Queensland incident, there's only so faulty tarmac can be. Again, it had to be pretty damned hot for that to happen.
What if the objective was to create hype about record temperatures in order to advance a political agenda? Then where would we locate our instruments?
In that case use the satellite record which shows a warming trend greater than the surface station record.
This is actually part of a cycle: As temperature heats up, more people use their air conditioners which heat up the air even more, power central has to burn more fuel. It's one of many feedback loops that ensure climate change inevitable. The only thing you can do is prepare for it.
The "Heat Wave" reports about "Canada" are really about Eastern Canada, where temperatures above 28C [86F] generally cause panic of sorts, and will trigger weather warnings in Toronto.
Out here in Western Canada (prairies and the coast) temperatures around that number get you a "it's warm out" and "enjoy the sunshine" from the TV weatherman. Today it was 32C [90F] with the Humidex at 40 [104F] and nobody blinked, nobody keeled over dead, and everyone just enjoyed the weather. I believe that is the same as the highest temperature all week in Montreal where the "heat wave death" news reports apparently come from.
Normal temperatures in my city range from -40C [-40F] wintertime to +40C [104F] summertime air temperatures, with rare occurrences (say, 10 year highs and lows) a little beyond. The Humidex of course would be higher.
It all comes down to what people are used to ... I remember the panic in the UK this year at the London Marathon where temperatures reached a record high of 28C [82F] and the BBC was warning about the heat and urging everyone from participants to spectators to keep hydrated.
Actually, "normal climate variability" or "a heat wave" explains it nicely.
High daytime temps are NOT part of the catastrophic AGW prediction set, you know. The theory is that NIGHTTIME temps will increase, not daytime, so the overall average goes up.
And when they talk about "consistently higher" temps, they're literally talking about fractions of a degree in most cases.
By the way - there have been a few surveys of weather stations, and the vast majority of them have problems, mostly caused by either encroaching cities (the Urban Heat Island effect) or bad instrument siting. Very, very few stations have consistent records, with relatively untouched siting. The ones that do? Well, they don't show the AGW trend that the others do... and the response by AGW scientists is to adjust the ones that aren't showing the increase (AKA "throwing out the good data so the bad data looks better").
Try this site, for a bit of data that will shock you...
http://www.surfacestations.org/
This critique of weather stations used in the instrumental temp record is pretty tired at this point. Berkeley Earth already addressed the issue of station selection bias extensively and built a new record from a complete overhaul of the station selection methodology. Dr. Muller began the instrument record reconstruction project as a climate skeptic and as a result of his own research, changed his mind about AGW. Perhaps his paper will be enough evidence to change yours: http://static.berkeleyearth.or...
If you're trying to reject the theory of AGW, at a bare minimum you need to be providing a comprehensive general circulation model that can explain even half of present warming in the absence of forcing from anthropogenic gases. Especially given the amount of negative forcing from aerosols in the troposphere and the current level of solar irradiance.
I keep wondering how soon we will see a GOP that has knees that bend backwards, and they speak in weird languages?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Racist? Why is everything always racist? Just because the recent former president happens to be black, everything is now racist? We whites have been calling each other monkeys for 100's of years when we mean morons, but now all of a sudden we can't insult the president, like we've insulted all presidents throughout our entire history, just because he's black? Give it a f'n rest...
Dr. Muller began the instrument record reconstruction project as a climate skeptic and as a result of his own research, changed his mind about AGW.
That's not quite the case. He was on board with AGW, but then when Climategate hit he saw some shoddy science that gave him pause for concern.
I was initially hopeful when he started his project, but I became soured when it became a giant fund-raising effort as well as involving nepotism (his daughter).
Also, glancing at the paper, is there an explanation that explains the temperature rise from the 1750-1850 temperature average to the higher temps in 1850-1950? Is that from carbon dioxide? If not, what is the explanation?
What caused the Earth to warm and sea levels to rise about 400 feet in the last 10,000 years?
Something else to consider: the predicted rise in temperature due to the direct effects of carbon dioxide is modest. Most of the rise is from hypothesized cloud formation, which is uncertain.
...you're going to do about this so-called climate change?
The answer is, "Not a damned thing." Why? Because you can't. That is, not without widespread death from the methods you would use to combat it.
Raise the price of fuels to astronomical levels? It'd just plunge the almost-poor into abject poverty, which is deadly. Smoking will take maybe 7 years off your life, but living in poverty will take about 10. Wanna kill a lotta people? Make 'em poor. That's what the normal, environmentalist-approach is to every question, "Money is no object" and then we get cars that cost twice as much as they should while chasing the goal of eliminating 0.0002% of the remainder of some imagined deadly pollutant. Eliminate the pollutant and save 27 people this year, and kill 100,000 from poverty. (F U!)
The bottom line is that there's nothing you can do about this that will come out of a Congress or a Parliament. The answer for this is going to come out of a physics lab. Walking up and down in front of some legislature with your hand-lettered sign in your father-Christmas beard and sandals isn't going to do a damned thing because all they can do is create poor people by passing some expensive law, which will kill a good percentage of those newly-minted poor people.
No, the fix for this is going to come from scientists that invent the magic battery or the magic supercapacitor that will store grid electricity or electric car electricity so that we can stop using fossil fuels. Oh, BTW, wind is not gonna be the savior, since the foundation of each of these massive wind turbines takes about 250 cubic yards of concrete, which is a huge CO2 emitter during its manufacture. While a nuke plant uses maybe 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in its containment structure, our >52,000 wind turbines amount to 13,000,000 cubic yards of concrete, minimum, for their foundations. And our 52,000 wind turbines have a combined capacity of slightly less than 8 gigawatts. That compares to the largest nuclear power station in the world that has slightly more than 8 gigawatts output. Composed of multiple nuclear reactors, I believe it is 7, that would be 2.8 million cubic yards of concrete. How many such plants does it take to run the entire USA? 302,229 megawatt-hours was the April generation, so with 24 hours in a day and 30 days in April, that is about 420 megawatts continuously. 420 megawatts / 8 megawatts per 52,000 wind turbines, assuming the wind blows 24/7/365, would be 52.5 times the 52,000 or so wind turbines we have now, which would be 2,730,0000 total wind turbines, or 2,679,500 _additional_ wind turbines to be built, except the wind doesn't blow continuously so double that for backup, so we want and additional 5.4 million wind turbines. And again, at 250 cubic yards of concrete for foundation per wind turbine, that's 5.4 X 250 = 1,350 million cubic yards of CO2 producing concrete manufacturing.
And of course there's still PV, with solar farms as far as the eye can see. No big need for CO2 producing concrete with those, but the sun doesn't shine 24/7/365 either. Solar photovoltaic energy is only available for a fraction of the day, since there's that night bugaboo plus the occasional cloud, so we're going to need billions of them and we're going to need energy storage.
So... really... what's the answer? A wind turbine in the frame of absolutely every outdoor photograph anyone takes within the borders of the USA, and a country probably devoid of birds that would all be killed by the whirling blades? Or solar photovoltaic "farms" in said outdoor photographs no matter where in the USA one points the camera?
Solve those PHYSICS problems and MAYBE we could stem the production of CO2 if we can find out how to use electricity to replace a jet engine, but if we turn propellers with electric motors, we'll get propeller speeds again, back to the 1950's air travel model.
But nobody's going to solve this by whining at legislators.
In the UK? Why doesn't it melt in Arizona or the thousands of other places where it gets a hell of a lot hotter than the UK? What do they pave with over there, milk chocolate?!?
Something smells fishy about that story.
Which old record, where? In some places in Europe, it's breaking the record set less than half a decade previously.
What caused the Earth to warm and sea levels to rise [nasa.gov] about 400 feet in the last 10,000 years?
For most of that period the Earth did not warm, in fact it got cooler. But large areas of ice take a long time to melt. If you get a drink at 1C, and put an ice cube in it, the ice cube will melt, even as the temperature of the drink falls. Obviously, in the case of increased sea level, we are talking about ice on land melting, not just sea ice. The warming occurred from 21000 to 10000 years ago, roughly (some brief reversions excepted), and then cooled from 8000 years ago until 200 years ago.
The data is available for download.
Actually, tarmac can be really faulty, like when you don't have any support under it. Asphalt is great under compression, but you can literally break it with your hands if it's under torsion without support.
The "Queensland incident" happened during the winter there (parts of Australia are suffering under record cold right now). Someone either mixed too much solvent into the tar when they were making the asphalt in cool weather, or they just had a bad batch of materials.
Does it bother you when your "it's only isolated incidents" comment just adds another case of false AGW evidence?
You didn't answer the question. What caused the Earth to warm? Saying it was the end of an ice age is just rephrasing the question as an answer.
What caused the Earth to warm?
Milankovitch cycles. Small change in position of the Earth relative to the Sun.
The effects of Climate Change are becoming more and more obvious. Sooner or later, something really nasty is going to happen, with widespread serious consequences for one or more First World countries.
And when that "something" occurs, whether it's a prolonged heat wave, an unprecedented string of devastating storms or wildfires, an epidemic, a drought or whatever, a lot of people are going to die.
When that happens, who will be an easier target for the rage of bereaved survivors, the head of Exxon, or the asshole down the street who liked to sneer at "SJW's" and spray pesticides when the neighbour's kids were playing outside?
It doesn't take a lot of training to make a Molotov cocktail.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Not really, since it's a spit in the bucket compared to thousands of reading all over the world. Does it bother you when someone tries to explain away a record summer with "someone must have parked an ice cream truck next to THE thermometer"?
Note, Australia has been having awfully warm winters of late including a recorded high of 39C last year in August.
That's not quite the case. He was on board with AGW, but then when Climategate hit he saw some shoddy science that gave him pause for concern.
I was initially hopeful when he started his project, but I became soured when it became a giant fund-raising effort as well as involving nepotism (his daughter).
Also, glancing at the paper, is there an explanation that explains the temperature rise from the 1750-1850 temperature average to the higher temps in 1850-1950? Is that from carbon dioxide? If not, what is the explanation?
What caused the Earth to warm and sea levels to rise about 400 feet in the last 10,000 years?
Something else to consider: the predicted rise in temperature due to the direct effects of carbon dioxide is modest. Most of the rise is from hypothesized cloud formation, which is uncertain.
You're arguing over semantics. He was skeptical in the years prior to completing the Berkeley Earth analysis and was not upon completion. He has stated this himself in numerous interviews. I personally know multiple colleagues of his so I feel quite confident in my assertion that he was skeptical about AGW and now is not.
I'm not sure that whether or not his daughter worked for him has anything to do with the empirical evidence concerning AGW.
Warming during the first half of the 20th century is likely due to a combination of natural climatic variability (namely solar irradiance and volcanism) and anthropogenic factors (burning of fossil fuels that began ramping up during the industrial revolution). Gradual warming since the dawn of the Holocene is pretty well understood as being a function of the Milankovitch cycles. Are you suggesting that because climate has changed due to natural variation in the past, it's therefore impossible that humans are causing a meaningful change in the planetary energy budget? I'm not really following your line of reasoning so just checking.
The models have generally under-estimated temperature rise rather than the reverse. Recent research suggests cloud feedback may be stronger than anticipated and in fact result in greater warming. It's also important to point out that the CH4 hydrate feedback in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is not incorporated into models and will possibly exacerbate warming in ways that the models don't account for. So, while it's true that there is variability in processes, scientists (especially the IPCC synthetis) has tended to be demonstrably conservative in the RCP projections. Given that the 1.5C/2C RCP are already pushing the limits of what may be "safe" upper limits for human civilization, it probably makes sense to be pragmatic and take them seriously -- especially if there's even a 5% chance that warming may actually exceed those numbers given other feedbacks.
Oversubscribed.
It's not news if it doesn't contain any BS.
It's not real trolling if it doesn't remove context from quotes. All-time records obviously only apply to those times for which we have records.
At least for the Los Angeles area those sources are pretty darn poor...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Oh, uh... So was I. Yes.