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

Japan Hits Highest Temp Ever

Visbek said:
A few hot days in Sweden is merely weather.

A heat wave that covers the entire northern hemisphere, and keeps breaking records, is a bit more than that.

IIRC what's most likely happening is the jet stream slowed down. Normally, this would cause high temperatures and possibly a heat wave. The problem is that after decades of warming, the baseline is higher, thus various areas will be hit harder by this type of natural condition. So it isn't just an ordinary natural weather system.

USA Today 7/25/2018: Record July temperatures heating up world
"In the past 30 days, there have been 3,092 new daily high temperatures, 159 new monthly heat records and 55 all-time highs worldwide, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

This is definitely Not Normal.
Click to expand...

If the global average is even 1C higher, we could break records, and they would not mean much.
Weather records are just that, weather.
You say that the heat wave "covers the entire northern hemisphere", yet in the other high heat thread you posted this image.
_102673302_climate_change_world_v2_640-nc.webp
Which clearly shows that some portions of the northern hemisphere are also below normal.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not up to your standard. "This sentence" makes it clear there is no evidence to support your ideologically-mandated claim. The paper is clear: temperatures up, fires down. You look like a fool in this exchange.
Click to expand...

You're imagining things. The conclusion that you quoted says nothing about the effect of temperatures on wildfire frequency or intensity, other than to warn that: "the warming climate, which is predicted to result in more severe fire weather in many regions of the globe in this century, will probably contribute further to both perceived and actual risks to lives, health and infrastructure."

I think we can all see who the fool is here.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not up to your standard. "This sentence" makes it clear there is no evidence to support your ideologically-mandated claim. The paper is clear: temperatures up, fires down. You look like a fool in this exchange.
Click to expand...

And it’s not just that paper.

It’s quite clear from the literature that wildfires are exacerbated by anthropogenic warming.

Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests | PNAS

We demonstrate that human-caused climate change caused over half of the documented increases in fuel aridity since the 1970s and doubled the cumulative forest fire area since 1984. This analysis suggests that anthropogenic climate change will continue to chronically enhance the potential for western US forest fire activity while fuels are not limiting.
Click to expand...

And...

Recent Advances and Remaining Uncertainties in Resolving Past and Future Climate Effects on Global Fire Activity | SpringerLink

The future of wildfire regionally and globally will be affected by changes in climate, atmospheric CO2, fuels, humans, and their complex interactions. Among recent macro-scale fire projections, there is much spatial heterogeneity and the most consistent projection is toward warming-driven increases in high-latitude fire activity. These projections are generally consistent with observational and paleo records of fire and climate
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
People absorb a lot of heat, everything they build and the minimum cover needed for work and sleep per person. At 10x population density, the US would be warmer at (and accompanying development) 3.5 billion.
Click to expand...

Is this or new theory on why temps are going up? Body heat?

:lamo
 
Surface Detail said:
You're imagining things. The conclusion that you quoted says nothing about the effect of temperatures on wildfire frequency or intensity, other than to warn that: "the warming climate, which is predicted to result in more severe fire weather in many regions of the globe in this century, will probably contribute further to both perceived and actual risks to lives, health and infrastructure."

I think we can all see who the fool is here.
Click to expand...

You are arguing against the data.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously pointed out, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. The sentence you quoted is a speculation about the future, and has nothing to do with the results reported in this paper. On the other hand, the first sentence of the conclusion could not be more clear. Despite rising temperatures in recent decades:

We have shown here that the widely held perception of increasing fire and fire impacts at the global and some regional scales is not well supported by the realities that the available data show.
 
Threegoofs said:
And it’s not just that paper.

It’s quite clear from the literature that wildfires are exacerbated by anthropogenic warming.

Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests | PNAS



And...

Recent Advances and Remaining Uncertainties in Resolving Past and Future Climate Effects on Global Fire Activity | SpringerLink
Click to expand...

As for your first link, just modeling BS.

[FONT=&quot]We use modeled climate projections to estimate the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to observed increases in eight fuel aridity metrics and forest fire area across the western United States. [/FONT]
 
longview said:
If the global average is even 1C higher, we could break records, and they would not mean much.
Click to expand...
Breaking a small handful of records doesn't mean much.

Breaking over 3000 daily records, and over 150 monthly records, in 30 days, is meaningful. It's an indicator of global warming. It is exactly the kind of consequence predicted by climate change.

The global average being 1C higher is also meaningful. In fact, that's pretty much the whole point. The rise in global temperatures means that heat waves are more likely, and will be more intense when they do hit.


You say that the heat wave "covers the entire northern hemisphere", yet in the other high heat thread you posted this image.

Which clearly shows that some portions of the northern hemisphere are also below normal.
Click to expand...
Canada, most of America, the UK, most of Western Europe, much of northern Africa, and eastern Asia are all getting slammed with record-breaking heat waves. That's what we mean when we talk about a heat wave across the northern hemisphere. It doesn't mean that "every square inch is above normal."

I.e. equivocation does not change the facts, or the implications thereof.
 
Visbek said:
Breaking a small handful of records doesn't mean much.

Breaking over 3000 daily records, and over 150 monthly records, in 30 days, is meaningful. It's an indicator of global warming. It is exactly the kind of consequence predicted by climate change.

The global average being 1C higher is also meaningful. In fact, that's pretty much the whole point. The rise in global temperatures means that heat waves are more likely, and will be more intense when they do hit.



Canada, most of America, the UK, most of Western Europe, much of northern Africa, and eastern Asia are all getting slammed with record-breaking heat waves. That's what we mean when we talk about a heat wave across the northern hemisphere. It doesn't mean that "every square inch is above normal."

I.e. equivocation does not change the facts, or the implications thereof.
Click to expand...

It is still just weather! There are plenty of hot years, 1934, 1944, 1980, lots of records were broken, it does not mean much.
We know the climate is and has been changing, but so far 2018 is nothing special on data sets.
Weather has a broad range, the right combinations of summer sun, minimal clouds, low wind and high pressure and cause
very quick diurnal temperature increases, it means little on the annual temperature.
 
longview said:
It is still just weather! There are plenty of hot years, 1934, 1944, 1980, lots of records were broken, it does not mean much.
We know the climate is and has been changing, but so far 2018 is nothing special on data sets.
Weather has a broad range, the right combinations of summer sun, minimal clouds, low wind and high pressure and cause
very quick diurnal temperature increases, it means little on the annual temperature.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you’re aware:

e3e7808b1ee19e33bec95875c0189506.gif
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Is this or new theory on why temps are going up? Body heat?

:lamo
Click to expand...

Did you really miss the point or you're just going along with the joke? My first draft had it appearing even more like body heat was the issue.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are arguing against the data.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously pointed out, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. The sentence you quoted is a speculation about the future, and has nothing to do with the results reported in this paper. On the other hand, the first sentence of the conclusion could not be more clear. Despite rising temperatures in recent decades:

We have shown here that the widely held perception of increasing fire and fire impacts at the global and some regional scales is not well supported by the realities that the available data show.
Click to expand...

Once again, you appear unable to understand the words in front of you. Yes, the paper says that wildfires don't appear to be increasing. But nowhere does the paper link that to any rise in temperature. Rather, it talks of the increase in suppression costs over recent years, implying that human actions have kept wildfires at bay.

Anyway, I thought you claimed that temperatures are falling, not rising. Or is that just when it suits a different argument?
 
longview said:
It is still just weather! There are plenty of hot years, 1934, 1944, 1980, lots of records were broken, it does not mean much.
Click to expand...
It does, because this is not just happening in isolation. It's happening after decades of increasing temperatures, during the hottest decade on record.


We know the climate is and has been changing, but so far 2018 is nothing special on data sets.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually, it is. April was the 3rd hottest on record. May was 4th. June was 5th. 2018 could be 4th or 5th hottest on record.

We should be aware that sometimes, yes, "it's just weather." This is not one of those times.

I.e. "this is fine" is not a strong argument here.
 
Surface Detail said:
Once again, you appear unable to understand the words in front of you. Yes, the paper says that wildfires don't appear to be increasing. But nowhere does the paper link that to any rise in temperature. Rather, it talks of the increase in suppression costs over recent years, implying that human actions have kept wildfires at bay.

Anyway, I thought you claimed that temperatures are falling, not rising. Or is that just when it suits a different argument?
Click to expand...

Rising up to 1998, flat to 2016, falling since then.
The paper does not "imply" anything about suppression except that it has been costly.
You are correct that the paper does not link wildfire decline to a rise in temperature. No one said it did. The paper simply and plainly says the data do not support a claim of increased wildfires, and in fact there seems to have been a decline.
You continue to argue against the data.
 
Jack Hays said:
Rising up to 1998, flat to 2016, falling since then.
The paper does not "imply" anything about suppression except that it has been costly.
You are correct that the paper does not link wildfire decline to a rise in temperature. No one said it did. The paper simply and plainly says the data do not support a claim of increased wildfires, and in fact there seems to have been a decline.
You continue to argue against the data.
Click to expand...

It is you who is arguing against the data. Your claim that temperatures have been flat and then falling since 1998 is simply wrong.
 
Surface Detail said:
It is you who is arguing against the data. Your claim that temperatures have been flat and then falling since 1998 is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Now you're trying to change the subject. I infer you've given up arguing against the plain language of the wildfire paper.
 
Visbek said:
The measurements are based on 24 hour averages. There isn't much reason to focus on diurnal variations.

Though when we do, we see that nights are warming more than days, which is a) not good and b) another sign that the cause is GHGs.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ights-warming-faster-than-days-dangerous.html
Click to expand...

And yet when people focus on this or that daily record, that is exactly what they are doing. Because the diurnal swing is so wide compared to the warming, the two numbers have little
Relevance to each other.
You mentioned that the ghg prediction
Included T-Min warming faster than
T-Max, please cite the reference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
And yet when people focus on this or that daily record, that is exactly what they are doing.
Click to expand...
I've already explained how we are not conflating weather and climate.


Because the diurnal swing is so wide compared to the warming, the two numbers have little
Relevance to each other.
Click to expand...
You, uh, do know what "24/7" means, right?

It means that when we are looking at temperature data, we are looking at all 24 hours of the day, 7 days a week. We're looking at temperature increases during both the day and the night.

I realize that you have found this new hammer called "diurnal temperatures" and that as a result, everything looks like a nail. However, it is not a magic hammer that justifies a refusal to accept the rise in temperatures.


You mentioned that the ghg prediction
Included T-Min warming faster than
T-Max, please cite the reference?
Click to expand...
This might get you started
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.4688
 
Jack Hays said:
Now you're trying to change the subject. I infer you've given up arguing against the plain language of the wildfire paper.
Click to expand...

You posted a obvious falsehood, that temperatures have remained flat and fallen since 1998. I'm entitled to point that out.

And, for the nth time, the paper simply points out that wildfires have not increased. Nowhere does the paper state that rising temperatures don't correlate with increasing wildfires. The bit that you seem to have trouble grasping is that factors other than temperature also affect wildfire frequency.
 
Surface Detail said:
You posted a obvious falsehood, that temperatures have remained flat and fallen since 1998. I'm entitled to point that out.

And, for the nth time, the paper simply points out that wildfires have not increased. Nowhere does the paper state that rising temperatures don't correlate with increasing wildfires. The bit that you seem to have trouble grasping is that factors other than temperature also affect wildfire frequency.
Click to expand...

I did not claim anything about temperatures. I don't have to. It was your claim that rising temperatures increase wildfires. The paper concludes there has been a decline in wildfires, not an increase. Your claim is refuted.

As for temperatures, the story is simple. 1998 temperature was not surpassed until 2016, and then only slightly. Decline since then.
 
Threegoofs said:
Why?

And why don’t you post it if you think it’s important?

Oh, right. Because you can only post what others compile, and no one except for one single anonymous DP poster thinks diurnal temp range is relevant to disproving AGW, so no one has done it.
Click to expand...

The why, is it would show how silly saying a single day record is compared to the amount of observed warming.
 
Visbek said:
I've already explained how we are not conflating weather and climate.



You, uh, do know what "24/7" means, right?

It means that when we are looking at temperature data, we are looking at all 24 hours of the day, 7 days a week. We're looking at temperature increases during both the day and the night.

I realize that you have found this new hammer called "diurnal temperatures" and that as a result, everything looks like a nail. However, it is not a magic hammer that justifies a refusal to accept the rise in temperatures.



This might get you started
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.4688
Click to expand...

Actually Davy, showed that early work predicting the asymmetry were largely ignored,
Karl, and later Hansen, were looking for why T-Max and T-min were not the same.
Hansen predicted that T-Max would catch up to T-Min, and he contributed a lot to the early models.
What you do not understand, is that I think AGW represent weak science, they have a hypothesis that is not supported by the data.
Yes, we see what appears to be average warming, but the cause could be many different things, or simply the effects of the many cycles converging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom