As scientists have long predicted, warming is making heatwaves more deadly

[Lord of Planar]

The issue is the global warming/climate change that results in excessive heat waves such as the one in the Pacific Northwest.

Funny how people living here I see seem to be enjoying it rather than having a problem with it. We have mostly been comfortably in the 70's and 80's rather than the 90's. We had a few days in the 90 in July. A few days of unusually hot weather doesn't make for the whole summer to be hotter. Whoop-t-do. We had three days over 100F. Unusual for June, but not so unusual for July or August. So many things contribute. When you have almost no wind blowing cooler air into the city, they city starts to bake.

 

[watsup]

It is not a "proven fact." The science says CO2 both warms and cool. Now it is only a very slim chance that the secondary cooling effects of CO2 are greater than the warming, what you said is not factual.

“ an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)”

Scientific fact - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

www.vocabulary.com

And thus my previous statement stands.

 

[watsup]

Funny how people living here I see seem to be enjoying it rather than having a problem with it. We have mostly been comfortably in the 80's rather than the 90's. A few days of unusually hot weather doesn't make for the whole summer to be hotter.

How many died as a result of thr excessive heat? Were they enjoying it?

 

[flogger]

The thread you started ion this section with a YouTube video.

So is more CO2 somehow bad for plants then ?

Where's the lie you claim ?

 

[longview]

It is exactly the same conditions as someone without AC at home trying to stay alive. No air conditioning has the same effect no matter where you are.

Not really, many offices have windows that do not open, and people at home have options not available to people at the office.

 

[flogger]

You deny the scientifically proven fact that human-produced CO2 is heating up our atmosphere and causing global warming and climate change.

It is not a "proven fact." The science says CO2 both warms and cool. Now it is only a very slim chance that the secondary cooling effects of CO2 are greater than the warming, what you said is not factual.

Thanks for saving me the bother

 

[watsup]

So is more CO2 somehow bad for plants then ?

That’s a very simplistic way of looking at AGW.

 

[watsup]

Thanks for saving me the bother

See post #202.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Not really, many offices have windows that do not open, and people at home have options not available to people at the office.

I worked in a warehouse. That is identical to living at home without a central air conditioner.

 

[Lord of Planar]

“ an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)”

Scientific fact - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

www.vocabulary.com

And thus my previous statement stands.

Are you saying CO2 is the only variable that can affect temperature.

Wow. I wish it was that simple.

There is a real effect of the oceans warming when the surface insolation is higher than their equalization point, and cooling when it is less than the equalization point. Because of the mass of the ocean, these changes are real slow.

Here is the historical reconstruction of TSI and satellite data. There is a long term increase. Even though we see less TSI than the peak in 1959, we are still warming to equalize.

https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Historical_TSI_Reconstruction.png

I used the same data that made that graph, and calculated an exponential response to it:



As you can see, when the TSI is greater than the orange curve, representing the ocean heat content, the orange curve increases. The orange curve decreases when it is higher than the TSI. This attempt to equalize This shows it is very likely the ocean will continue to increase in temperature for some time still. The Ocean is the heat sink of the earth, and drives the global temperature more than any other factor.

 

[watsup]

Are you saying CO2 is the only variable that can affect temperature.

Wow. I wish it was that simple.

There is a real effect of the oceans warming when the surface insolation is higher than their equalization point, and cooling when it is less than the equalization point. Because of the mass of the ocean, these changes are real slow.

Here is the historical reconstruction of TSI and satellite data. There is a long term increase. Even though we see less TSI than the peak in 1959, we are still warming to equalize.

View attachment 67345799

https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Historical_TSI_Reconstruction.png

I used the same data that made that graph, and calculated an exponential response to it:

View attachment 67345803

As you can see, when the TSI is greater than the orange curve, representing the ocean heat content, the orange curve increases. The orange curve decreases when it is higher than the TSI. This attempt to equalize This shows it is very likely the ocean will continue to increase in temperature for some time still. The Ocean is the heat sink of the earth, and drives the global temperature more than any other factor.

I am not saying that. You really need to become less dependent on that particular strawman, which you use way too much. And while the oceans “drive” the temperature, what is the long-term effect of human-produced CO2 being transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans?

 

[flogger]

I am not saying that. You really need to become less dependent on that particular strawman, which you use way too much. And while the oceans “drive” the temperature, what is the long-term effect of human-produced CO2 being transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans?

Given we have no accurate value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 (which is a very weak greenhouse gas to start with) its purely subjective guesswork like the whole AGW premise has been from the start.

But lets run with that guesswork. The CO2 content of our atmosphere has risen by 100PPM (or 0.01% of atmospheric volume) since monitoring of it began. Lets say that we ascribe that rise entirely to human activity. What would your target for reducing it be if (at enormous human cost of course) we were somehow able to achieve it ?

What if after all that human sacrifice ....... the guesswork didn't pan out ? What then ?

 

[Lord of Planar]

How many died as a result of thr excessive heat? Were they enjoying it?

Less than die when its cold.

 

[iguanaman]

Except that June 2021, was cooler on a global average than June 2020, and June 2019.
This begs the question, if the 3 day heat wave in the Pacific Northwest is tied to high average global temperatures,
then why did we not see the Heat waves in June 2019, and June 2020, when the average global temperatures were warmer, than June 2021?

Now you are confusing weather with climate. You don't need to be right...just create doubt.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am not saying that. You really need to become less dependent on that particular strawman, which you use way too much. And while the oceans “drive” the temperature, what is the long-term effect of human-produced CO2 being transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans?

I'm sorry for your "tunnel vision." I don't know what to do about it.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Less than die when its cold.

Is this why so many people live in the Arctic but almost no one lives in the tropics?

 

[flogger]

Is this why so many people live in the Arctic but almost no one lives in the tropics?

Why do you people want to plunge large swathes of humanity into energy poverty and premature death by demanding they use useless expensive renewables ? I just don't get it

 

[Lord of Planar]

Is this why so many people live in the Arctic but almost no one lives in the tropics?

Wow.

Did you ever get that one wrong.

The tropics make up about 40% of the planet's surface area and is home to approximately 40% of the world's population. It is estimated that 50% of the world's population will reside in the tropics by the late 2030s.

Tropical Countries 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

​

Residents of the Arctic include a number of indigenous groups as well as more recent arrivals from more southern latitudes. In total, only about 4 million people live in the Arctic worldwide, and in most countries indigenous people make up a minority of the Arctic population.

Learn | National Snow and Ice Data Center

Quick facts, basic science, and information about snow, ice, and why the cryosphere matters The cryosphere includes all of the snow and ice-covered regions across the planet.

nsidc.org

Other sources will say something similar.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Why do you people want to plunge large swathes of humanity into energy poverty and premature death

I can see you "really care" about the poor people of the earth. You might want to read some of your own country's history of exploitation and colonization of underdeveloped nations.

The funny thing is: you are typing this on a computer which is largely made in China because it is cheaper to make there meaning the exploitation the West has always undertaken continues to this day.

But suddenly you guys can feign horror over the lot of developing nations so you don't have to deal with the reality of climate change.

I'm sure you're a nice person IRL and you probably do care but honestly the more I see you folks on the denialist and skeptical side roll out the pearl clutching over the lot of the poor people of darkest Africa the more FAKE the sadness seems. Crocodile tears and all.

Don't get me wrong: America is now the leader in imperialism and rampant economic exploitation. We learned from the masters.

In point of fact if we don't deal with climate change the POOR PEOPLE WILL HAVE IT EVEN WORSE THAN WE DO.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Wow.

Did you ever get that one wrong.

​

The tropics make up about 40% of the planet's surface area and is home to approximately 40% of the world's population. It is estimated that 50% of the world's population will reside in the tropics by the late 2030s.​

I guess irony is another one of those things you don't get is it?

-sigh-

It's like Kramer in the Dojo here. LOL.

 

[watsup]

Why do you people want to plunge large swathes of humanity into energy poverty and premature death by demanding they use useless expensive renewables ? I just don't get it

Recycled denier talking point. *YAWN*

 

[Buzz]

There is a real effect of the oceans warming when the surface insolation is higher than their equalization point, and cooling when it is less than the equalization point. Because of the mass of the ocean, these changes are real slow.

Here is the historical reconstruction of TSI and satellite data. There is a long term increase. Even though we see less TSI than the peak in 1959, we are still warming to equalize.

View attachment 67345799

https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Historical_TSI_Reconstruction.png

I used the same data that made that graph, and calculated an exponential response to it:

View attachment 67345803

As you can see, when the TSI is greater than the orange curve, representing the ocean heat content, the orange curve increases. The orange curve decreases when it is higher than the TSI. This attempt to equalize This shows it is very likely the ocean will continue to increase in temperature for some time still. The Ocean is the heat sink of the earth, and drives the global temperature more than any other factor.

WARNING!!
The above statement and graphs are based mostly on Lord's denialist speculation and are not supported by any peer-reviewed and published science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

WARNING!!
The above statement and graphs are based mostly on Lord's denialist speculation and are not supported by any peer-reviewed and published science.

Fixed:

WARNING!!
The above statement and graphs are based mostly on Lord's understanding of the data and are not supported by any blogger science that I understand.

 

[Buzz]

Fixed:

Too bad your understanding is not based on any peer-reviewed and published science that you can cite or that I have ever seen. But I am sure that if I went looking I could find some denialist blogs that back you up.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So Buzz.

Let me get this straight. Are you contending that I am wrong when I say when a heat is applied to an object that is greater than its loss of heat, that it does not increase in temperature? Are you contending that when the supplied heat is less than what is needed to maintain a temperature, that the object does not decrease in temperature?

You have me baffled. Do you believe in magic? How else do you explain your denial of science?

What I illustrated was a simple application of energy balance. The ocean is going to lose heat, at a rate primarily driven by its surface temperature. If I apply heat at a greater rate than it is lost, then the heat content, hence the temperature, will increase. The same science dictates the ocean will cool if I supply less heat than what is lost at the surface.

The epipelagic zone is 200 meters deep. This is a mass of more than 200 metric tons per meter. It takes more than 800 million joules of energy to raise this by 1 degree. If you know anything about science, you will know it takes a very long time to change the temperature of that water by one degree with the small change in surface insolation as the sun changes TSI. It takes so long, that the effects I showed on the graph are real.

Deny science all you want. I will just shake my head.