July Was the Hottest Month On Record, Global Data Shows (cnn.com) 294
European climate researchers said Monday that last month was the hottest July -- and thus the hottest month -- ever recorded (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), slightly eclipsing the previous record-holder, July 2016. "While July is usually the warmest month of the year for the globe, according to our data it also was the warmest month recorded globally, by a very small margin," Jean-Noel Thepaut, head of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said in a statement. The New York Times reports: The service, part of an intergovernmental organization supported by European countries, said the global average temperature last month was about 0.07 degree Fahrenheit (0.04 Celsius) hotter than July 2016. The researchers noted that their finding was based on analysis of only one of several data sets compiled by agencies around the world. The climate service noted some regional temperature differences in July. Western Europe was above average, in part because of a heat wave that occurred during the last week of the month and set temperature records in Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere. A rapid analysis released last week found that climate change made the heat wave more likely. "The highest above-average conditions were recorded across Alaska, Greenland and large swathes of Siberia," the report adds. "Large parts of Africa and Australia were warmer than normal, as was much of Central Asia. Cooler than average temperatures prevailed in Eastern Europe, much of Asia, the Northern Plains and Pacific Northwest of the United States and over large parts of Western Canada."
significance (Score:5, Interesting)
No single hot spell is significant, of course, but what makes this noteworthy is that it is the global average temperature, not a hot spell in a single region. And the fact that it is on top of a previous record only three years previously.
There are a number of different organizations that independently correlate temperature data. This one comes from the Copernicus Climate Change Programme in Europe. Will be interesting to see if the NOAA data set gives the same result (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/)
Re:significance (Score:5, Interesting)
No single hot spell is significant, of course, but what makes this noteworthy is that it is the global average temperature, not a hot spell in a single region. And the fact that it is on top of a previous record only three years previously.
I've found this whacky weather to be pretty interesting. Here in the northeast, of the USA, we are drowning, and the thunderstorms are very interesting. Ironic to have to buy water saving outlets in record rainfail.
I wonder if the anomalous high latitude weather changes are largely related to the changes in average air pressure? For instance, Sea level air pressure in Greenland has dropped 4 milliBar in the last 50 years, while in the tropics it has risen by 3 milliBar. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com] That's a recipe for increasing the intensity of storms and movement of warm air, and is concerning. Regardless, the models need a tweaking, previously expecting only a 1 millibar change.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic to have to buy water saving outlets in record rainfail.
Not ironic as much as a failure of policy and engineering. The problem with water flooding the streets is that the streets are not where we supply water from. I've been through a similar thing a decade ago. Water restrictions to 180L/day. Then finally massive rainfall, floods, major damage everywhere. Rivers broke their banks, and we'd have been dancing in the rain if it weren't for the fact that we were sandbagging our houses. 2 weeks later, water restrictions upgraded to 120L/day.
One good thing that the g
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic to have to buy water saving outlets in record rainfail.
Not ironic as much as a failure of policy and engineering. The problem with water flooding the streets is that the streets are not where we supply water from. I've been through a similar thing a decade ago. Water restrictions to 180L/day. Then finally massive rainfall, floods, major damage everywhere. Rivers broke their banks, and we'd have been dancing in the rain if it weren't for the fact that we were sandbagging our houses. 2 weeks later, water restrictions upgraded to 120L/day.
One good thing that the government did is massively subsided tank installation. Everyone got one and we finally ended up in a situation where we captured the water where it fell. Now people happily live with water restrictions *and* are still able to wash their cars, water their lawn, and top up their swimming pools.
California? That might be a really good place to have cistern water. Here in the northeast we don't often have water problems, perhaps once every 20 years. I get to meet a lot of people who fly in from other states, and most of them are entranced by how green it is here.
But it is getting weird. This is the third year in a row that our grass hasn't gone summer dormant. Air conditions are regularly freezing up.
Re: (Score:2)
Check to make sure your filters and coil are not blocked up with dirt & dust. If they're clear, then check to make sure you're not low on refrigerant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
El Nino's are localized phenomena. They don't affect the whole temperature in the whole globe.
The message here is that the highest average temperature over the whole globe was measured/calculated/averaged.
No idea why you sent such idiotic posts in every climate related thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Global [Re:significance] (Score:5, Informative)
What this article is describing is weather, not climate.
No. The data is measuring the global temperature over a one month period. The discussion breaks out the details by region.
Higher or lower than normal temperatures in parts of a region, is weather. If it truly was "climate change" it would happen everywhere, not just in some areas.
Here's the part you left out of your quote. Let me boldface the word "global average," which you apparently missed:
"The service, part of an intergovernmental organization supported by European countries, said the global average temperature last month was about 0.07 degree Fahrenheit (0.04 Celsius) hotter than July 2016."
You point out: "If it truly was "climate change" it would happen everywhere, not just in some areas," and, in fact, the data being discussed is global.
Re: (Score:2)
Paleoclimate [Re:significance] (Score:2)
What I find significant is that it says "on record". Which means that for most of the earths life span, we have no idea how hot it got.
Partly true.
We can reconstruct temperature from other sources (coral, tree rings, isotope ratios, etc.-- as well as secondary phenomena, such as glacial advances and sea level rise/fall). The farther back you go, the harder it is to get an accurate reconstruction of the temperature, and the less accurate your estimated dates are.
Scientists work on this a lot (google "paleoclimate reconstruction"). What we do know is that higher temperatures, in the past, have correlated with higher carbon dioxide. Corr
Windier in the PNW (Score:2)
As the article mentioned, it's been a cool summer here in the Pacific Northwest. It's also been windier. The usual summer blocking high pressure zone never arrived in July, but it did show up this week, so we finally made it to 100 F. Until this week I had only used the AC four times this summer, and one of those times was due to canning peaches, not the outside temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
The most important weather on the planet at this time is where there is ice sitting on land, the weather on the rest of the planet not so important. Where it has been getting the warmest the most, is where the ice currently is but there will now be less of it every year, so much less, that 1.5 metres of sea level rise in a very short time is now a pretty sure bet. No arguing any more about whether or not it is going to happen, time to buy those waders because it is all too late now, just a matter of time, t
This is a flat out lie (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Actual data [woodfortrees.org] This is just the last 25 years of data, too... It was definitely hotter many times in the past, for an entire month or more. This is just a lie to drive an agenda - and people here swallow it because "it's in the news". Check the data - that doesn't lie.
Or perhaps your data is in error, or is measuring a different thing. What is your dataset and where did you get it?
Hottest month on record until (Score:2)
It's the hottest month on record until... next year.
Re:Missed opportunities (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if you're really an idiot, or just trolling. Probably both.
Either way, your incoherent post mashes things together in the wrong way and doesn't make sense.
It has been "global warmy" in the last decades. That is the biggest, irrefutable fact when discussing climate change. Even if it has been locally freshy in your area every once in a while, on average, global temperatures are moving up.
If you can't get that into your small heady because you are really big on denialism, a conspiracy theorist or a big fan of Fox News commentators that I'm sure have a much better understanding of the underlying science than the actual scientists, well, then you really are a fucking hopeless idiot, like a lot of American conservatives and Trump worshippers these days.
Re:Missed opportunities (Score:5, Interesting)
Deniers tend to go on about how predictions are wrong, but don't really every show those purported predictions, and when they do, it's usually some news report that mangled the science.
If you're interested, here's the National Academies of Sciences report from 1979. Tell me what part is wrong: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12... [nap.edu]
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:5, Insightful)
Mmm. Reading comprehension.
First, your quote is from some official, not a scientist or an actual scientific report. Even then, it says that there could be serious consequences to not reversing the warming trend by 2000. It didn't say those consequences would occur by 2000.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So you counter that someone complained to the GP that some official's statement is not a link to actual scientific work by posting a link to some other government official's unscientific work? *Slow sarcastic clap*
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It was "accepted science" that the glaciers were going to be gone by 2020 ...
People like you make this stuff up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence of those displays or are you just making that up?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why the Federal Government had great displays talking about how the glaciers were going to be gone by 2020? ...
You have a picture of that? ROFL
Are you saying they simply made it up?
Yes, the idea that in the 1970s people claimed a dooming ice age and in the 1990 people were claiming a rapid glacier melt and raising see level in 2020: that never happened. It is made up.
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:2)
Deepak Chopra says some weird shit about quantum mechanics that doesnâ(TM)t seem to be true. Better not use your computer anymore.
Perhaps the PR department of the US national parks service isnâ(TM)t a good source for climate science?
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Missed opportunities (Score:4, Interesting)
The glaciers should've been gone since 2012, right?
Well since you put it like that I'm sure you can point us to links of peer reviewed scientific articles showing how models predicted that.
I'll wait...
No I won't, because they don't exist.
Sidenote that in no way has anything to do with you being wrong either way: Do you reliase snow and glaciers are not the same thing, right?
Re:Missed opportunities (Score:5, Informative)
A shame the global warning acolytes already said that temperature and weather dont indicate climate change, when things didnt seem global warmy.
Too bad they said that or they could use this recent warm spell to push their religion.
Global warming is based on science, not religion. One warm summer (a single data point) does not prove global warming any more than a cold year would disprove it. For looking at climate (long term) rather than weather (short term) you need statistics and trends [theguardian.com].
The only ones who bring religion into this are religious nuts [newrepublic.com] who believe that only God can change the climate
.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, science relies upon data. And the data does not support the claim [woodfortrees.org]. In every temp record, we see months that were warmer before, just in the last 25 years. This is an out-and-out lie, and it's done for one reason: political influence.
If you actually look at your data, you will see that the July 2019 data is not yet in the datasets. For HadCrut, the last datapoint is May 2019. Likewise for their own "Wood for Trees temperature index". So how can you see in these graphs if any previous month was warmer than a month not yet covered by the data?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So please get on board and represent the centrists and conservatives in dealing with climate change using free market solutions. Just because the far-left fringe treats global warming as a religious crusade *doesn't mean it isn't real*.
There's a very specific set of corporatist interests on the fiscal right that have taken advantage of their alliance with the evangelical right to lead a huge swath of society to ignore solid science. These people do not have the well-being of the majority of humanity at hear
Re: (Score:2)
There's a very material difference between someone studying the speed of light through careful experimentation, and third-hand accounts of someone explaining how the universe works because he claims God talked to him after setting a shrub on fire.
Re:Missed opportunities (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you roll a die three times, and "6" comes up twice in those three rolls. That's unusual, but it's not proof the dice are loaded. Two sixes comes up roughly once in every 14 triple rolls.
Now let's say you roll the die thirty times and you get "6" twenty times. It's virtually certain the die is biased, even though the proportion of 6s is the same. There's less than a one in a billion chance that die is fair.
So yes, despite the fact that local cold weather can't be used as disproof of global warming, the entire planet being warmer than normal *is* evidence for global warming, and the fact that the entire globe has been warmer than average every year since 1976 is extremely strong evidence of warming. That's like flipping a coin and getting 42 heads in a row.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, despite the fact that local cold weather can't be used as disproof of global warming, the entire planet being warmer than normal *is* evidence for global warming
Especially since "weather" is mostly caused by heat going from one place to another.
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:4, Insightful)
Texas had coolest July in over 60 years. If this is Global Warming, bring it.
Which part of the word "global" are you having difficulty understanding?
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:5, Funny)
Texas had coolest July in over 60 years. If this is Global Warming, bring it.
Which part of the word "global" are you having difficulty understanding?
He is Texan, he probably thinks Glob Al is Al Gore's fat younger brother and wants nothing to do with him.
Re: (Score:2)
manbearpig has apparently not been seen in Texas for some time.
Re: (Score:3)
Texas is the globe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand. This article is talking about average temperature, whereas all the normal records look at temperature anomaly (deviation with respect to a base period). The anomaly compares temperatures in the same month, to adjust for seasonal variation, and July 2019 is hotter than any other July in the record. On top of that, July (always) has the highest absolute temperature, so if you add that to the anomaly, you get the highest overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually August is the hottest month, not July. At least in northern and central Europe (Germany/France/Spain etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Globally, July is a little bit hotter than August. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Globally, probably. That is why I included a few countries where in my impression that is not the case. This year however August is colder than July in Germany.
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:4, Interesting)
European climate researchers said Monday that last month was the hottest July -- and thus the hottest month -- ever recorded
Emphasis added. They explicitly state it was the hottest July AND the hottest month ever recorded. And yet - that's not true. If they meant just the first part, just the hottest July, then there was no need to add the clause between the hyphens.
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:2)
They never recorded such temperatures. Temperatures have not been recorded until maybe 200 years ago.
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:2)
You are confusing recordings and reconstructions.
This was the highest temperature July month recorded.
Re: Missed opportunities (Score:2)
No. I am saying what I said. Reconstructions are not the same thing as records.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you are unaware that these types of headlines are used to generate fear and convince people that there are no warmer temperatures in our history.
This is almost certainly true as history only goes back a few thousand years and the reconstructions of times before there were accurate temperature readings indicate it is very unlikely that any time in human history was higher. If you mean the existence of the planet that's different, but then for most of that period humans didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Data source [Re: Missed opportunities] (Score:2)
Where did you get these data sets,
The particular data set being discussed is from The Copernicus Programme, a European collaboration. The data set is on their page: https://climate.copernicus.eu/ [copernicus.eu] (click "data" in the menu bar)
and where is the paper comparing them to the data set described in this article?
This is a news release from a research group, not a paper. Documentation on methodology, however, can be found on their page: https://confluence.ecmwf.int/c... [ecmwf.int]
Scientists don't look at random graphs from random web sites. That's not science.
Correct. This is a news release from a research group, not a paper.
There are certainly enough papers on the subject the document methodology, but no, each of t
Re: (Score:2)
The part that is a lie. Not a single dataset [woodfortrees.org] shows that July was hottest - they ALL have previous months (many, in fact) that were warmer. This is simply an out-and-out lie - the data simply does not support the claim.
Can you respond to your misreading of the data on that website which led to you suggesting that there had been no warming recently despite that site, from your own link a couple of weeks ago, showing a steeper warming trend from 1980-2018 over 1980-1997?
In the case of the link you have posted you seem to have failed to understand the difference between largest anomaly and highest temperature. It's pretty obvious this is an anomaly chart as the scale at left is +- a few degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew somebody would make this post without thinking further. Yes, globally it may have been hotter, but if for him personally it's cooler, then it's advantageous to have global warming. .
It's advantageous for someone in Texas until climate shifts to the point where all that North Texas farmland becomes arid as the North American breadbasket shifts further north. And if he thinks illegal immigration is bad enough now with economic migrants, wait until environmental migrants get added to the mix.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that in 1913 we had good global data. Most of these global averages are based on temperatures since the 1970 (basically the last 40-50 years). While it gives us some data, there is evidence that prior to that, due to coal burning and inefficient fuel combustion we had much higher averages and faster CO2 buildup, melting etc cover the last 250 years and that the last 50 years is a slow but sure improvement at least in the Western world.
The problem is China and India are building up much faster (and
Re: (Score:2)
thats why China is the top country in renewables and India not too far behind and per capita create less pollution than USA etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that in 1913 we had good global data..
Actually, we do have good global data from then as there were a lot of people studying the weather at that time and a lot of temperature readings covering a large part of the globe, thanks in part to European empires.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. My basement was pretty cold this July, so this has to be fake news by Big Climate and the international committee of evil. Never trust the climate!
Yes [Re:Is the human activity the only respons...] (Score:5, Informative)
It turns out that yes, we are pretty certain that human-generated trace gasses, primarily CO2, are responsible for warming. The theory is well understood, the modelling has been done by dozens of independent groups on five different continents (with open source code that thousands of people have been scrutinizing for errors), and there simply isn't an alternate theory that fits the measured data and explains the temperatures on Earth (and also on the other planets and moons of the solar system with atmospheres-- you do know that Earth isn't the only planet that we analyze) We have very very good measurements in the 21st century. We KNOW the inputs to the climate. We measure the solar variability. We know the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide and other trace gasses. There simply is no other input that is large enough to account for the present warming.
You comment that some people say "just one vulcan produces more CO2 than the entire human activity". (I assume "vulcan" is a typo for volcano). No. Less by many orders of magnitude. Try here: https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov] or, if you don't like that source, even that conservative financial magazine Forbes has it right: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The theory is well understood, the modelling has been done by dozens of independent groups on five different continents (with open source code that thousands of people have been scrutinizing for errors), and there simply isn't an alternate theory that fits the measured data and explains the temperatures on Earth
The FSM reached with his noodly appendage and turned up the heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't overstate modelling uncertainty (Score:4, Informative)
It turns out that yes, we are pretty certain that human-generated trace gasses, primarily CO2, are responsible for warming. The theory is well understood, the modelling has been done by dozens of independent groups on five different continents (with open source code that thousands of people have been scrutinizing for errors), and there simply isn't an alternate theory that fits the measured data and explains the temperatures on Earth (and also on the other planets and moons of the solar system with atmospheres-- you do know that Earth isn't the only planet that we analyze) We have very very good measurements in the 21st century. We KNOW the inputs to the climate. We measure the solar variability. We know the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide and other trace gasses. There simply is no other input that is large enough to account for the present warming.
The climate models you discuss have a lot more unknowns in them than you let on: ...clouds remain one of the largest source of uncertainties in climate predictions from general circulation models (GCMs). Globally, clouds cool the planet by17.1Wm2 [Loeb etal. 2009]. This cooling results from a partial cancelation between two opposing contributions: cooling in the shortwave (46.6Wm2) and warming in the longwave (29.5Wm2). To put these numbers in perspective, the radiative impact of the increase in longlived greenhouse gases since 1750 is estimated to be 2.63±0.26Wm2 [Forster et al., 2007, Table2.12]. It should therefore not come as a surprise that uncertainties in the representation of clouds can have considerable impact on the simulated climate.
You can read the full article, by one of the IPCC model teams, here [wiley.com]. Before you call that a lone wolf, the IPCC's last report reference at least 3 other teams all corroborating the same as the linked article. For reference, that includes 100% of the model authors that discussed their tuning procedures and methods...
So, that is to say that clouds, which we admittedly model very poorly, impact the energy imbalance by an order of magnitude more than human CO2.
One of the other journal articles the IPCC references on climat emodel tuning is here. [ametsoc.org]
Within they note the extremely challenging problem modelers are faced with:
The observations correspond to the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES)–Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) L3b product for Loeb et al. (2009). The height of the gray rectangle in (a) and thickness of the gray curves in (b) and (c) correspond to an observation uncertainty of ±4 W m2.
So, we have a limitation still on the actual observed energy imbalance of +/- 4 WM2 and a reasonably accurately known contribution of 2.6 WM2 from increased CO2 concentrations.
The same article later notes:
The often-deployed paradigm of climate change projection is that climate models are developed using theory and present-day observations, whereas ECS is an emergent property of the model and the matching of the twentieth-century warming constituting an a posteriori model evaluation. Some modeling groups claim not to tune their models against twentieth-century warming; however, even for model developers, it is difficult to ensure that this is absolutely true in practice because of the complexity and historical dimension of model development.
The reality of this paradigm is questioned by findings of Kiehl (2007), who discovered the existence of an anticorrelation between the total radiative forcing and climate sensitivity in a model ensemble; high-sensitivity models were found to have a smaller total forcing and low-sensitivity models were found to have a larger forcing, yielding less cross-ensemble variation of historical warming than otherwise to be expected. Even if alternate explanations have been proposed and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm
You are confusing feedback with radiative effect. Neither my post, nor any of the journals linked had anything to say about cloud feedbacks.
In models, radiative effect is the immediate/instantaneous impact on radiation coming in/out of our atmosphere. Feedback is the change in radiative effect of a process in response to temperature changes.
The -17WM2 radiative cooling effect of clouds is based on observed values. That is the reference made in the journal articles I linked. That number tells us nothing abou
Re: (Score:2)
You've put this all over the comments section, but you don't seem to understand what it says.
Re:Is the human activity the only responsible? (Score:5, Funny)
(Some people say that just one vulcan produces more CO2 than the entire human activity).
Dammit, Spock!
Re: (Score:2)
(Some people say that just one vulcan produces more CO2 than the entire human activity).
Dammit, Spock!
Not to worry. As soon as his pon farr ends he'll cool back down.
Re:Is the human activity the only responsible? (Score:5, Informative)
Humans currently roughly 100x the CO2 that volcanoes do *on average*: 29 gigatons of anthropogenic CO2 per year vs. 0.3 gigatons of volcanic.
That 0.3 gigaton average takes into account rare mega-eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo, which spewed 45 gigatons of carbon into the air in one go. Such events are rare, though, happening a handful of times per century. Even if they happened every year, it would be incorrect to say that human emissions are *negligible* compared to them.
In general we're more concerned about changes that happen over the scale of 100 years than we are about changes that happen over the scale of 2000 years; that's a 20-fold difference in rate. If you had to pay your student loans back in one year instead of 20, you'd notice the difference.
As for whether climate would continue to warm if we cut emissions to zero, nobody is even seriously considering zero emissions. The most optimistic scenario anyone envisions as possible is called "RCP 2.6", in which we continue emitting CO2 at the rate we are now. In that case we can expect 1C of warming by the end of century. "RCP 8.5" is a more realistic scenario in which we manage restrain the rate of increase to what it is today. In that case we're looking at 3.7C increase in that same time frame. That's nearly a 4-fold increase in rate of change that will be quite noticeable to people living through it.
Either way we're going to have to deal with change, whether it's change of our choosing or change forced upon us.
Re: (Score:2)
RCP 2.6 assumes that our CO2 emission *peaks* between 2010 and 2020, then *declines* substantially. All the RCPs assume a peak and decline, except 8.5.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people don't understand how numbers work.
Man how do I get one of these jobs (Score:2)
How do I get a job where all I do is mod down facts? Sounds easy
Re:It's been a mild summer thus far (Score:5, Insightful)
No worries but I won't sign up for global wealth redistribution.
Strangely, people with a rightward political orientation don't seem to have an alternate plan.
Why is that?
From the right, all I ever hear is "if the problem is real, the only solution would be socialism and global dictatorship! That would be terrible! Since there's no other possible solution, the problem must not exist!"
First, whether the science is right has nothing to do with your politics. It is or it isn't regardless of what your politics are.
But, second-- uh, is the right really saying "our political philosophy is unable to solve problems, so we ignore them."
If you don't like the solutions proposed-- for heaven's sake, propose other solutions.
It's not Left/Right (Score:2)
No worries but I won't sign up for global wealth redistribution.
Strangely, people with a rightward political orientation don't seem to have an alternate plan.
Why is that?
Remind me again which political orientation has been opposing nuclear power again?
You can make yourself feel better by belittling large groups of people, or you could try and reach out and try to get cooperation on solutions...
The climate ins't impacted over much by how we distribute our wealth, how we generate power though certainly does.
Work on getting a consensus for mass conversion to nuclear power, asap, or you can entirely give up on trying to convince anyone you actually believe we are facing an emin
Re: (Score:2)
The single most beneficial solution in every way would be more nuclear energy.
If this was 1963, you'd have a point.
It isn't 1963. There is not enough time to build enough nuclear reactors to make a difference. The knowledge of how to build a commercial reactor is highly specialized and contained within a small number of companies, so construction can't be scaled-up quickly.
Don't pretend nobody is offering solutions if you stick your fingers in your ears and scream because you don't want to hear them.
Can we when you aren't actually offering solutions?
Re: (Score:2)
France has the majority of its power generated by nuclear plants
France has also canceled construction of new nuclear plants, because they're too expensive compared to renewables.
So odd if nuclear was the panacea you propose.
Electricity prices in Germany are almost twice of what they are in France.
Also, please ignore all differences in pricing regulations and subsidies in each country so AC can claim they are making a point.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite is everybody and their grandmother citing a study that's several years outdated and which sums up subsidies since 1970 when renewables weren't even a thing yet.
Tip: When you subsidize the construction of a power plant decades ago, you have less debt to pay back. Which means you can charge your customers less money, even long into the future. Because your loans are also long-term.
Also, you've completely missed the point: France and Germany have different power pricing regulations and subsidy schemes, which means you can't just compare euros-per-kWh charged to consumers in both countries. Attempting to deflect by talking about a different discussion doesn't chang
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there are various plans like using iron to cause algae blooms which die and sequester carbon that fall under geoengineering.
Said blooms also kill all the other marine life in the area of the bloom.
But somehow we're never given that choice
So odd we aren't going with "Kill everything in the ocean that isn't algae" plan. Must be some evil socialist plot.
Re: (Score:2)
it was in the 1970s that the global cooling scare was promulgated.
But not by scientists.
Re: (Score:3)
But you didn't.
Global [Re:Someone is pushing an agenda..] (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
https://realclimatescience.com... [realclimat...nce.com...]
Funny thing is these websites always manage to put themselves into the category of "too much bullshit to bother trying to filter out the kernels of truth" alarmingly quickly.
First link: 1500 years of heatwaves, as if having a spell far from the mean is (a) unusual or (b) says much about whether the mean is going up now. So, that's bullshit.
Second link: "global cooling". So tell me, why is someone talking about climate science concerning themselves with a short lived popula
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you pick a random blog and not something authoritative? I'm all for people educating themselves, but starting with questionable material when you don't understand the topic puts you in a position where you won't be able to parse fact from fiction.
What qualifications do you have that you think you can parse "junk science" from "good science"? Because your rant above tells me that you probably don't have any such qualifications. You've deemed yourself knowledgeable enough to figure this shit out, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Just how young and innocent are you? I first heard about theories on global warming caused by greenhouse gases back in grade school in the 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
Just how young and innocent are you? I first heard about theories on global warming caused by greenhouse gases back in grade school in the 1960s.
It's been argued about since the 19th century. Fourier identified the greenhouse based on the properties of carbo dioxide.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really sure what you're excited about. A newspaper didn't report the same thing happening in a different location than you were in?
You know that's not science, right? And that has nothing to do with global warming? And this is regional, and not global?
I mean, you seem very, very angry about something, but you don't really seem to understand what you're angry about. To start, why don't you educate yourself? Start by picking some reputable sites, not blogs with agendas, and do some reading. You'll lik
First of several analyzes (Score:3)
There are a number of independent research groups that analyze temperature data. This one was the first of the groups to report out on compiling their data for July, but what the article is pointing out is that we haven't yet gotten the compiled data from any of the other sources.
The one I'd wait for is NOAA. But they haven't posted July 2019 yet. Here's the July data up to 2018: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/... [noaa.gov]
Other people like the NASA data set, or the Berkeley Earth data set, or the CRU data set, or
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Other sets don't confirm [woodfortrees.org]. The satellite record [drroyspencer.com] shows multiple months that were hotter. They cherry-picked one dataset so they can make a claim - because all other datasets do not support the claim.
Science says look at the data - and when the data and your hypothesis clash, data wins. There are no exclusions for "global warming/climate change" - data always wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Science says look at the data...
So why are you linking to random sketchy blogs and not the actual data? That tells me that you're not really interested in the science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, forgot the graph...... http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is July hotter than January Globally? (Score:4, Informative)
Can someone explain to me why the northern hemisphere summer is hotter than the southern hemisphere summer when looking at the global average temperature?
It's due to the differences in land masses https://www.climatecentral.org... [climatecentral.org]