Australia Just Had Four of Its Hottest Days on Record

[Bergslagstroll]

But but...thousands of scientists were all crooked and "faking data" because they were on the "government gravy boat"! All over the world too! - even under all those different governments!

Yes they've known since the late 70's of the effects of increasing greenhouse gases. They even had plans for taking advantage of when the ice in arctic regions melted and they could drill for more oil. But they are still funding propaganda 'science'. Just read some of the ridiculous papers from paid "skeptics" in the Energy and Environment Journal. Well known for it's crap "peer review" and for being a dumping ground to publish climate change denial papers. Read the pseudoscience propaganda from the fossil fuel funded Heartland Institute or other conservative/libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute.

You for example have this intersting book.

"The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era."

https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not only that but both also that both Republicans and the fossil fuel companies would have to be extremly incompotent. That Bush was president for eight years, Trump have been for two years and you have also have Republican congresses. So all those Republicans should have been able to use federal funds to disprove manmade global warning if any evidence existed. Instead federal agencies countinue to acknolwedge manmade global warming.

While the fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable companies in the world, so they could also have easily fund studies to disprove manmade global warming if any evidence existed. Instead the fossil fuel companies own studies show that manmade global warming is real and will have devasting effects.

Why such simplistic thinking?

Why the strawMann argument?

Nobody is claiming AGW isn't real!

It's the magnitude of the warming that is in question, and your side hasn't proven squat...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Changes in the sun can't explain the recent warming.

"But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases."

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

The sun can explain about half of the warming. Remember the thermal inertia of the oceans require several decades of equalization. The changes of the atmospheric transparency is in play too.

 

[code1211]

Changes in the sun can't explain the recent warming.

"But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases."

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

And my question remains:

If CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, then today's concentration of CO2 which is the highest in the last million or so years should be driving the warmest climate in the last million or so years.

It is not doing so.

Why?

 

[code1211]

Not only that but both also that both Republicans and the fossil fuel companies would have to be extremly incompotent. That Bush was president for eight years, Trump have been for two years and you have also have Republican congresses. So all those Republicans should have been able to use federal funds to disprove manmade global warning if any evidence existed. Instead federal agencies countinue to acknolwedge manmade global warming.

While the fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable companies in the world, so they could also have easily fund studies to disprove manmade global warming if any evidence existed. Instead the fossil fuel companies own studies show that manmade global warming is real and will have devasting effects.

Prove a negative?

Can you prove that Space Aliens are not walking among us?

Can you prove that Big Foot does not exist?

NASA publishes that the sea level has risen about 9 inches since 1880. There should be ample photographic evidence to support this from around the world.

Beaches everywhere should have disappeared. Cites on the coasts should be submerged. There should be photographs clearly showing these things, but they are not all that available.

Why not?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

[Quaestio]

The sun can explain about half of the warming. Remember the thermal inertia of the oceans require several decades of equalization. The changes of the atmospheric transparency is in play too.

No, it can't. Your amateur nonsense notions are not science or evidence based, they're ideologically based.

 

[Fletch]

Why such simplistic thinking?

Why the strawMann argument?

Nobody is claiming AGW isn't real!

It's the magnitude of the warming that is in question, and your side hasn't proven squat...

NOr have they declared what the optimal temperature should be or come up with a way that will 'solve' the problem either.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And my question remains:

If CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, then today's concentration of CO2 which is the highest in the last million or so years should be driving the warmest climate in the last million or so years.

It is not doing so.

Why?

You have to have faith brother Code.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, it can't. Your amateur nonsense notions are not science or evidence based, they're ideologically based.

I see your DK Effect is in full mode right now.

 

[code1211]

You have to have faith brother Code.

I have faith in matters of faith.

In matters of science i really prefer data and good record keeping.

I especially like records that are not adjusted every decade to better support the agenda of those creating the adjustments.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have faith in matters of faith.

In matters of science i really prefer data and good record keeping.

I especially like records that are not adjusted every decade to better support the agenda of those creating the adjustments.

They are religiously silly about these things, aren't they...

 

[Quaestio]

I see your DK Effect is in full mode right now.

Ironically, I see you don't even understand what the Dunning-Kruger effect is, yet your posts are a perfect example of it's effects.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Ironically, I see you don't even understand what the Dunning-Kruger effect is, yet your posts are a perfect example of it's effects.

I do understand it, and you sure fit when you say something so ignorant, as fact.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

And my question remains:

If CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, then today's concentration of CO2 which is the highest in the last million or so years should be driving the warmest climate in the last million or so years.

It is not doing so.

Why?

Because its not the only factor but for example NASA and other federal agencies under Donald Trump are acknowleding that solar activity or any other natural factor can't explain the present warming.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Prove a negative?

Can you prove that Space Aliens are not walking among us?

Can you prove that Big Foot does not exist?

NASA publishes that the sea level has risen about 9 inches since 1880. There should be ample photographic evidence to support this from around the world.

Beaches everywhere should have disappeared. Cites on the coasts should be submerged. There should be photographs clearly showing these things, but they are not all that available.

Why not?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

The fossil fuel companies have operation all around the world including coastal areas so they could easily have showed that the increase in temperature was wrong and also that the level of see level rise was wrong if any evidence of that existed. Instead they now acknowledge manmade global warming and it's devasting effects.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

American federal agencies like NASAunder Trump now and before under Bush could also easily have showed that the present warming of the athmosphere was more consistent with solar activity than C02 and other greenhouse gases. Instead NASA now under Trump acknowledge that the warming of the atmosphere is consistent with C02 and greenhouse gases. There it is just one of many evidence of manmade global warming that they present.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[Into the Night]

Australia is facing extremly hot weather.

Just like they do every summer. Summers get intense in Austrailia, since their summer is during Earth's perihelion. Winters are also intense and long, due to the that happening during Earth's aphelion.

"Australia is in the midst of a scorching heat wave this week that has set all-time temperature records in what has been four of its most sweltering days in history.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia.

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia said Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday ranked among the top 10 hottest days on record for the country as whole.

Manufactured data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia.

Marble Bar in northwest Australia has experienced the hottest temperature since the weekend, topping out at 120.4 degrees Fahrenheit (49.1 degrees Celsius) on Sunday.

Gee. A record 'heatwave' that is the hottest temperature since last week. :lamo

Not far behind is Tarcoola in South Australia which hit 120.2 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius) on Tuesday. That is the hottest temperature in its history dating to 1903."

So it is not the hottest temperature ever there either, eh?

While Europe had an extreme heat wave during the sumer of 2018.

Just like they do every year. Nothing new here either.

There climate change more than doubled the likelihood of the heatwave in Europe.

Define 'climate change'. Meaningless buzzwords don't cause heatwaves. Neither 'climate change' nor 'global warming' is probability math.

 

[Into the Night]

Get ready for the "But...But....it's snowing in NY". This will have no effect on the minds of our deniers nor will ANYTHING until something directly effects them.....unfortunately it will be their kids who really deal with the realities, and they probably will not be in a forgiving mood.

My kid understands the scam. He hates the Church of Global Warming almost as much as I do.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, it's a no brainier. The urban heat island effect will do that.

Whoop t- do...

The 'urban heat island effect' is unknown. There is no way to measure it, if it occurs at all.

 

[tecoyah]

My kid understands the scam. He hates the Church of Global Warming almost as much as I do.

I'm sure he does.....probably believes in the same God as you do too. Too bad you wont be able to ask again when he is your age.

 

[tecoyah]

The 'urban heat island effect' is unknown. There is no way to measure it, if it occurs at all.

Yup....I suppose that is why it is ALWAYS about 3-5 degrees warmer in our downtown than where I live ten miles away.

 

[longview]

Yup....I suppose that is why it is ALWAYS about 3-5 degrees warmer in our downtown than where I live ten miles away.

It is hard to say, but I think it is difficult to quantify the 'urban heat island effect' ,
Perhaps it could be based on the ratio of covered vs green space, and then the location of the thermometer in the city or town.
If we consider that a city of 100,000 might be 3 degrees C higher at it core, than the surrounding rural areas, then the suburban areas might be midway between
in temperature. How great the effect is, would be based on where on the heat island's slopes the monitoring station was.

 

[tecoyah]

It is hard to say, but I think it is difficult to quantify the 'urban heat island effect' ,
Perhaps it could be based on the ratio of covered vs green space, and then the location of the thermometer in the city or town.
If we consider that a city of 100,000 might be 3 degrees C higher at it core, than the surrounding rural areas, then the suburban areas might be midway between
in temperature. How great the effect is, would be based on where on the heat island's slopes the monitoring station was.

I hope you understand that you just described the heat island effect in action that you claimed does not exist.

I'll tell you what, here is an experiment for you to do in your back yard.

Put something black on you lawn on a sunny day. After an hour or so go out and touch it, then touch the grass and note which is hotter.

 

[longview]

I hope you understand that you just described the heat island effect in action that you claimed does not exist.

I'll tell you what, here is an experiment for you to do in your back yard.

Put something black on you lawn on a sunny day. After an hour or so go out and touch it, then touch the grass and note which is hotter.

Where did I claim the heat island effect did not exists?
I am speaking of how we cannot quantify the heat island effect with any real accuracy, and there are many variables.
Consider the homogeneity adjustment errors based on nothing more that the monitoring station is at the 2.5 C level rather than at the 1.5 C level.
The error would quickly exceed the measurement

 

[tecoyah]

Where did I claim the heat island effect did not exists?
I am speaking of how we cannot quantify the heat island effect with any real accuracy, and there are many variables.
Consider the homogeneity adjustment errors based on nothing more that the monitoring station is at the 2.5 C level rather than at the 1.5 C level.
The error would quickly exceed the measurement

My mistake.....I had assumed you were the individual my reply was directed at.
"Originally Posted by Into the Night
The 'urban heat island effect' is unknown. There is no way to measure it, if it occurs at all."

 

[longview]

My mistake.....I had assumed you were the individual my reply was directed at.
"Originally Posted by Into the Night
The 'urban heat island effect' is unknown. There is no way to measure it, if it occurs at all."

No worries, I was just pointing out that while we know the heat island effects exists, being able to measure it with
sufficient accuracy to take it out of the warming equation, would be challenging.