France roasts in record heatwave, two die in Spain

[mommysboy]

I believe the G20 leaders enjoyed temperatures of around 27 degrees this week.  Problem- what problem?

[bendejo]

Whenever I see the headline for this thread I think it's about coffee.

 

 

[Krataiboy]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Like most denialists you fail to understand the importance of rate of change. It's happening faster now than at any other time in geologic history since the last major asteroid impact.

 

As for your realclimatescience.com, why believe them? If they had facts that they weren't afraid of being checked, they'd put it in writing instead of in videos.

 

Here's some information from the world of real science:

The global area experiencing extreme summer temperatures has grown well over ten times larger over the past 30 years. In the past several years, the global area hit by extremely hot summertime temperatures has increased 50-fold. The fingerprint of global warming has been firmly identified in these trends.

https://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps

 

And there's this: in the last 365 days there have been 259 all time record high temperatures set. In that same period there have been 47 all time record low temperatures set. That's a ratio of over 5 to 1. 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

 

 

 

Temperature datasets show some warming from 1988 However, the current modern warming, as represented by 30-year temperature increases, is not in the least extreme, unusual, or unprecedented.

 

In fact the new century brought a decade-long pause in the upswing, which sent climate change alarmists scrabbling for explanations. Temperatures have risen again, as you observe, over the last few years but there is no way of knowing whether they will rise and fall or remain constant hereafter.

 

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual mean global temperature has not risen in the 21st Century - challenging the prevailing view of anthropogenic global warming.

 

Even with the influence of the the 2015-16 El Nino, a natural warming spike, most datasets do not indicate warming exceeding the 2σ error margin in the last 15 to 20 years.

The relevant datasets (too large to show here) can be found here: 

https://isthereaglobalwarmingpause.com/#data. 

I posted the video as much of the material it contained could not be reproduced any other way. 

The chart below illustrates just how sudden and dramatic changes in the earth's temperature can be, even over relatively short periods and how miniscule, in historic terms, the modern warming really is.

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Krataiboy

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Temperature datasets show some warming from 1988 However, the current modern warming, as represented by 30-year temperature increases, is not in the least extreme, unusual, or unprecedented.

 

In fact the new century brought a decade-long pause in the upswing, which sent climate change alarmists scrabbling for explanations. Temperatures have risen again, as you observe, over the last few years but there is no way of knowing whether they will rise and fall or remain constant hereafter.

 

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual mean global temperature has not risen in the 21st Century - challenging the prevailing view of anthropogenic global warming.

 

Even with the influence of the the 2015-16 El Nino, a natural warming spike, most datasets do not indicate warming exceeding the 2σ error margin in the last 15 to 20 years.

The relevant datasets (too large to show here) can be found here: 

https://isthereaglobalwarmingpause.com/#data. 

I posted the video as much of the material it contained could not be reproduced any other way. 

The chart below illustrates just how sudden and dramatic changes in the earth's temperature can be, even over relatively short periods and how miniscule, in historic terms, the modern warming really is.

 

Thanks for the inconsistency. Earlier on, you laid possible blame on a strong El Nino for the spike in European temperatures. Whilst that was incorrect, the fact remains that strong El Ninos can induce a spike in average global temperatures. And that's precisely what happened in 1997-98. So for a few years after that, the average temperatures were cooler. But that's exactly what you would expect after such an anomaly. The trend line though, has continued its rise at an accelerated pace.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Since the 1997-98 strong el nino, there have been 9 years with higher global mean temperatures. Only 3 of those were strong el nino years. In other words, despite the absence of an el nino, 6 years had higher global mean temperatures.

 

[watcharacters]

Some may find this interesting.

 

Companies gearing up for the future lawsuits..

 

https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/why-company-lawyers-fear-climate-change-litigation/95232

[bristolboy]

 

Climate change made European heatwave at least five times likelier

 

The record-breaking heatwave that struck France and other European nations in June was made at least five – and possibly 100 – times more likely by climate change, scientists have calculated.

Such heatwaves are also about 4C hotter than a century ago, the researchers say. Furthermore, the heatwaves hitting Europe are more frequent and more severe than climate models have predicted.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/02/climate-change-european-heatwave-likelier

[RickBradford]

Meanwhile, another group of scientists points out, using official NOAA data, that despite the extreme heat in France, June 2019 temperatures were 0.7C below normal for the month globally, and 0.42C below the 2015-2019 average.

 

 

https://twitter.com/TempGlobal/status/1145741216316829696

 

You won't see any mention of that in the mainstream media, let alone the kind of hysterical caterwauling which accompanied the recent high temperatures in France.

Edited July 3, 2019 by RickBradford
Link added

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Meanwhile, another group of scientists points out, using official NOAA data, that despite the extreme heat in France, June 2019 temperatures were 0.7C below normal for the month globally, and 0.42C below the 2015-2019 average.

 

 

https://twitter.com/TempGlobal/status/1145741216316829696

 

You won't see any mention of that in the mainstream media, let alone the kind of hysterical caterwauling which accompanied the recent high temperatures in France.

Were these political scientists? Because they sure weren't climatologists:

June 2019 was the hottest ever recorded on Earth: European satellite agency

https://globalnews.ca/news/5453339/hottest-june-recorded-europe/

[RickBradford]

^^

You should read the links you post first.

 

Quote

New data released Tuesday found the average temperature in Europe for June 2019 was higher than any other June on record.

Your link is referring to Europe only, mine refers to the entire globe.

 

The whole point is that, despite the very high temperatures in Europe last week, monthly temperatures were more than balanced by cold - sometimes record cold - in other parts of the world.

 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

^^

You should read the links you post first.

 

Your link is referring to Europe only, mine refers to the entire globe.

 

.

 

Oh really? How far down did you read?

"The numbers show that the global average temperature for June 2019 was also the highest on record for the month.

According to the data, it was about 0.1 C higher than that of the previous warmest June in 2016, which followed a strong El Niño event."

[RickBradford]

That shows that different analyses of the available data come up with considerably different conclusions.

 

So much for "settled science".

[White Christmas13]

On 6/29/2019 at 8:23 AM, Cryingdick said:

Let's see if they stop using cars and taking planes to combat it.

Yes Boeing planes the Max ones

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That shows that different analyses of the available data come up with considerably different conclusions.

 

So much for "settled science".

I went to the tweet you cited and then to the site it linked to. There weren't even any names of any people associated with this website listed, much less their qualifications. Is this really your idea of how science works? Unnamed parties posting alleged facts. You've got to be really desperate to post this stuff as proof of anything, except as to the length global warming denialists will go to. It is to laugh. If anybody else wants a good chuckle here's a link to said website: http://www.temperature.global/

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The whole point is that, despite the very high temperatures in Europe last week, monthly temperatures were more than balanced by cold - sometimes record cold - in other parts of the world.

 

As for your assertion that "monthly temperatures were more than balanced by cold - sometimes record cold - in other parts of the world."

Really? There's a page on NOAA's website that lists all the high and low temperature records set in the last 365 days. I happened to check it yesterday and the ratio was almost 5.5 to 1. That is high temperature records vs. low temperature records. This kind of ratio has characterized most of this decade. A big acceleration from the previous decade where the ration was a mere 2 to 1.  That NOAA page happens to be down right now. But here's a link so you can peruse it for yourself when it's back up.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

[emptypockets]

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 4:50 PM, bristolboy said:

Like most denialists you fail to understand the importance of rate of change. It's happening faster now than at any other time in geologic history since the last major asteroid impact.

 

As for your realclimatescience.com, why believe them? If they had facts that they weren't afraid of being checked, they'd put it in writing instead of in videos.

 

Here's some information from the world of real science:

The global area experiencing extreme summer temperatures has grown well over ten times larger over the past 30 years. In the past several years, the global area hit by extremely hot summertime temperatures has increased 50-fold. The fingerprint of global warming has been firmly identified in these trends.

https://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps

 

And there's this: in the last 365 days there have been 259 all time record high temperatures set. In that same period there have been 47 all time record low temperatures set. That's a ratio of over 5 to 1. 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

 

 

 

I stopped reading your post after the word denialist was mentioned.

 

If you want to evangelise about your particular fetish learn to take people with you - not alienate them.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Really? There's a page on NOAA's website that lists all the high and low temperature records set in the last 365 days. I happened to check it yesterday and the ratio was almost 5.5 to 1. That is high temperature records vs. low temperature records.

 

* High v low records, and temperature averages, are not the same thing, as a moment's thought should inform you.

* The data I am quoting relates to June, which is only 30 days long, not 365 days

 

And don't call me a "global warming denialist" until you can work out what the phrase is supposed to mean. As it stands, it's just a silly playground slur.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

* High v low records, and temperature averages, are not the same thing, as a moment's thought should inform you.

* The data I am quoting relates to June, which is only 30 days long, not 365 days

 

And don't call me a "global warming denialist" until you can work out what the phrase is supposed to mean. As it stands, it's just a silly playground slur.

First off, as I pointed out, your data source is clearly worthless. Anonymous people posting claims about average temperature. This is your idea of science? Anyway if you want to stick to averages fine. You're still massively wrong. This was the hottest June ever on record and with only a very weak el nino still hotter than 2016 that had a strong el nino.

 

As for records being set...the point being that ordinarily in the past hot records and cold records were set more or less equally over time as should be the case if there is nothing constant pushing the climate to change in one direction. As climatologists do acknowledge. But when the ratio of high records to low records is this high, and when the ratio of high to low has been signifantly greater over 20 years, that is massively significant. That the rate of change in the ration is accelerating makes it even more significant. 

[emptypockets]

The planet has always warmed and cooled. Glacial core samples from Greenland? Ok can't argue with boffins. But remember that a 1000 years ago when the Vikings went travelling they named an island Greenland because it was covered in green trees. Then it got cold. 200 years ago people were ice skating on the Thames. then it got warm. The Industrial Revolution and the CO2 thing hadn't happened then. Go figure.

From what I have read lately the new science seems to suggest CO2 concentrations rise after periods of warming as the oceans release CO2 as their density changes - not the other way around which sort of shoots the alarmists right up the bum.

Look at the bigger picture - the orbit of the earth around the sun isn't circular (from memory about a 25,000 year overall cycle) and the pattern of sunspots on the Sun itself isn't linear. The Sun itself oscillates, or wobbles up and down with respect to the disc of the Milky Way Galaxy on a 130 million cycle apparently, periodically passing through a lot of star stuff such as comets and meteors. Coincidentally we are getting close to where we were 65 million years ago when one of the Great Extinctions occurred,

All are factors in the Earths climate.

None of which we can do anything about.

Except make money for certain interest groups.

 

Don't Panic!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by emptypockets

[RickBradford]

 

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, as I pointed out <snip>

You forgot the last part.

 

How do you define a "global warming denialist"?

[emptypockets]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, as I pointed out, your data source is clearly worthless. Anonymous people posting claims about average temperature. This is your idea of science? Anyway if you want to stick to averages fine. You're still massively wrong. This was the hottest June ever on record and with only a very weak el nino still hotter than 2016 that had a strong el nino.

 

As for records being set...the point being that ordinarily in the past hot records and cold records were set more or less equally over time as should be the case if there is nothing constant pushing the climate to change in one direction. As climatologists do acknowledge. But when the ratio of high records to low records is this high, and when the ratio of high to low has been signifantly greater over 20 years, that is massively significant. That the rate of change in the ration is accelerating makes it even more significant. 

June was bloody cold in Australia old mate!!! Not sure where your data set comes from. Bristol?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

The planet has always warmed and cooled. Glacial core samples from Greenland? Ok can't argue with boffins. But remember that a 1000 years ago when the Vikings went travelling they named an island Greenland because it was covered in green trees. Then it got cold. 200 years ago people were ice skating on the Thames. then it got warm.

From what I have read lately the new science seems to suggest CO2 concentrations rise after periods of warming as the oceans release CO2 as their density changes - not the other way around which sort of shoots the alarmists right up the bum.

Look at the bigger picture - the orbit of the earth around the sun isn't circular (from memory about a 25,000 year overall cycle) and the pattern of sunspots on the Sun itself isn't linear. The Sun itself oscillates, or wobbles up and down with respect to the disc of the Milky Way Galaxy on a 130 million cycle apparently, periodically passing through a lot of star stuff such as comets and meteors. Coincidentally we are getting close to where we were 65 million years ago when one of the Great Extinctions occurred,

All are factors in the Earths climate.

None of which we can do anything about.

Except make money for certain interest groups.

 

Don't Panic!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, Greenland wasn't covered in forest 1000 years ago. Somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago it was.

https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland-green.html

And while it's true that all sorts of things affect climate, so far climatologists haven't been able to find any period since the last asteroid crashed into earth when climate has changed so quickly. Climatologists don't deny the influence of at least some of the phenomena you mentioned.  But all you're doing is offering them up in an incoherent way. 

[emptypockets]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, Greenland wasn't covered in forest 1000 years ago. Somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago it was.

https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland-green.html

And while it's true that all sorts of things affect climate, so far climatologists haven't been able to find any period since the last asteroid crashed into earth when climate has changed so quickly. Climatologists don't deny the influence of at least some of the phenomena you mentioned.  But all you're doing is offering them up in an incoherent way. 

Nonsense. Greenland was green. If you choose to deny recently documented history - well up to you.

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by emptypockets

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

You forgot the last part.

 

How do you define a "global warming denialist"?

Someone who denies planet earth is on average getting warmer and warmer due to the increase of  greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. You can usually spot them because they rely on tweets and dodgy websites such as http://www.temperature.global  to advance their claims. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

Nonsense. Greenland was green.

I gave you a link to the science. I can do no more to fill your knowledge deficit.

[emptypockets]

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I gave you a link to the science. I can do no more to fill your knowledge deficit.

I decline to accept your dodgy links - with thanks.

As a thinking individual I will make my own mind up based on a diverse amount of information.

So far I have concluded that the planets atmosphere is indeed warming in recent years. I have also concluded that this is not at all unusual and has occurred periodically, as has planet cooling, for Millenia.

I also conclude that this is a mostly natural phenomena and nothing I will panic about. I certainly don't support giving billions to climate alarmist charlatans who cannot do anything about it except wail and gnash their teeth in the support of (and give funds to) their very clever trillionaire puppet masters.

 

Perhaps in the bigger picture it is natures way of population control - millions die - some live and restart a new civilisation.

 

Either way the planet Earth will be just fine.

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by emptypockets

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

I decline to accept your dodgy links - with thanks.

As a thinking individual I will make my own mind up based on a diverse amount of information.

So far I have concluded that the planets atmosphere is indeed warming in recent years. I have also concluded that this is not at all unusual and has occurred periodically, as has planet cooling, for Millenia.

I also conclude that this is a mostly natural phenomena and nothing I will panic about. I certainly don't support giving billions to climate alarmist charlatans who cannot do anything about it except wail and gnash their teeth in the support of (and give funds to) their very clever trillionaire puppet masters.

 

You have opened new doors to me about how science should be evaluated. To hell with expertise. 

And it is scary and infuriataing how BIG GREEN is pushing around the puny fossil fuel corporations and petro states. One weeps for their plight. Perhaps we can launch a gofundme campaign on their behalf.

[CGW]

4 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

One gal is topless (bottom right corner)????

Creating a bad & negative image of the country ???? 

[RickBradford]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone who denies planet earth is on average getting warmer and warmer due to the increase of  greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. You can usually spot them because they rely on tweets and dodgy websites such as http://www.temperature.global  to advance their claims. 

Ah, well, that doesn't include me, then, since the earth obviously has been getting warmer over the past 50 years, and it is generally agreed that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have a role to play in that.

 

Your definition of "global warming denialist" is a bit weak watery to satisfy the hard-core activists at Big Green, though - nothing about apocalypses such as extinction of the human race and other life forms. I doubt they would let you into the SJW Climate Club with those views.

[Tug]

9 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

You forgot the last part.

 

How do you define a "global warming denialist"?

You

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Ah, well, that doesn't include me, then, since the earth obviously has been getting warmer over the past 50 years, and it is generally agreed that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have a role to play in that.

 

Your definition of "global warming denialist" is a bit weak watery to satisfy the hard-core activists at Big Green, though - nothing about apocalypses such as extinction of the human race and other life forms. I doubt they would let you into the SJW Climate Club with those views.

Oh please. Your formulation of support is obviously designed to be as minimalist as possible.

?...it is generally agreed that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have a role to play in that.?

A role? really? Not the overwhelming role that 99 percent of climatologiost say it is?

And what kind of person who accepts the critical role of greenhouse gases would cite temperature.global.com as a believable source? A denialist. Let me remind you how you characterized the folks behind it:

"Meanwhile, another group of scientists points out, using official NOAA data, that despite the extreme heat in France, June 2019 temperatures were 0.7C below normal for the month globally, and 0.42C below the 2015-2019 average."

And when I pointed out your claim that June 2019 had lower than average temperature was false, you countered with this:

"That shows that different analyses of the available data come up with considerably different conclusions. So much for "settled science".

So that's how you think science is done? By unverified information posted by anonymous persons?

And you don't even have the honesty to admit that this information you provided is valueless. How did you even find this source? And only someone whose biases were so strong could have accepted this nonsense without even bothering to look into it.

Please, your claim that you are not a denialist is like someone claiming that a drop of vodka in a liter of water is enough to make you drunk.