Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[placeholder]

39 minutes ago, novacova said:

A few May’s ago, 2019? 10 days in a row 43 degrees Celsius. This July was pleasant in comparison 

The entire planet? Or just a small portion of it?

[digger70]

42 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Who says it isn't being accelerated by "man" and what are their qualifications?

I can Ask Who says it is  and what are their qualifications and what's the proof.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, novacova said:

And not to at airports surrounded by asphalt and concrete ????

Actually, a while back a very eminent physicist name Richard Mueller, a prominent climate change sceptic, challenged climatologists on exactly those grounds. That they hadn't compensated for the heating effect of asphalt and concrete and the whole urban island heating effect problem.  Climatologists claimed they had made such adjustments. His objections drew the interest of denialists and they funded him to assemble a team of scientists from various disciplines to prove climatologists wrong. Guess what his team found? That climatologists had gotten it exactly right. No matter which way he sliced it, the temperature readings showed global warming was a real thing. One way they sliced it was just to take data from rural monitoring systems where there would be no such heating effect. They showed the same warming effect as did the entire data base.

 

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

 "We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions."

https://archive.ph/CNkxr

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

About Berkeley Earth
Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of climate skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012...

We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies.

https://berkeleyearth.org/about/#:~:text=OUR HISTORY,their initial findings in 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, digger70 said:

I can Ask Who says it is  and what are their qualifications and what's the proof.

Pay close attention:

 

"Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge."https://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

 

That is how you make a claim and back it up with sources.  You should try it; you might not be dismissed as a troll as often.

[digger70]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Pay close attention:

 

"Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge."https://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

 

That is how you make a claim and back it up with sources.  You should try it; you might not be dismissed as a troll as often.

Well now it takes one to know one hey.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, digger70 said:

I can Ask Who says it is  and what are their qualifications and what's the proof.

Scientific consensus on climate change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

[digger70]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Scientific consensus on climate change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Don't keep hammering all this  to us non believers . One can believe what one wants.

Some say it's man made global warming .

Some say it isn't  . 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/664137

[BritManToo]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Scientific consensus on climate change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Here's a letter from 42 climate scientists that don't believe in global warming.

Link to text as it's a bit hard to read.

https://www.thestreet.com/economonitor/us/an-important-letter-sent-to-the-president-about-the-danger-of-climate-change

 

[JackGats]

41 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even now, you don't acknowledge that it's about rate of change. Instead you deflect by offering the blatantly false assertion that there's no proof etc.. The overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that your claim is nonsense. So why is it that you can't see the difference between change and rate of change?

When it turned out global warming was not clear-cut they renamed it "climate change".

 

When it turned out climate change itself was not clear-cut they renamed it "rate of change".

 

What next?

 

Or maybe you thing you're the only one on this forum who understands secondary school maths?

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Here's a letter from 42 climate scientists that don't believe in global warming.

Link to text as it's a bit hard to read.

https://www.thestreet.com/economonitor/us/an-important-letter-sent-to-the-president-about-the-danger-of-climate-change

 

From 1972. I wonder what those 42 scientists would say now after all these records are being broken

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, JackGats said:

When it turned out global warming was not clear-cut they renamed it "climate change".

 

When it turned out climate change itself was not clear-cut they renamed it "rate of change".

 

What next?

 

Or maybe you thing you're the only one on this forum who understands secondary school maths?

Global warming is more than clear cut but here's why they changed it:

 

But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.

https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

[novacova]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

You were the one that brought asphalt and concrete, where did you get that info from that they are included when taking Global temperatures?

 

Where do global temperature data come from?

Modern observations mostly come from weather stations, weather balloons, radars, ships and buoys, and satellites. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/35/where-do-global-temperature-data-come-from/

 

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature?

To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature/

More asphalt and concrete = higher readings and those are included. Get a grip.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Don't keep hammering all this  to us non believers . One can believe what one wants.

Some say it's man made global warming .

Some say it isn't  . 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/664137

Yes, you can believe whatever you want about anything at all.  But as long as you're going to make nonsensical claims about climate change, you're going to keep on getting hammered.

 

As for that link....inconsistent much? First you claim that the temperature measures are wrong. And now you cite a 20 year old paper that claims that the rise in temperature is due to the increasing activity of the sun. So now you accept global temperatures are on an upward trend? You sure do change your mind quickly.

[novacova]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Even now, you don't acknowledge that it's about rate of change. Instead you deflect by offering the blatantly false assertion that there's no proof etc.. The overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that your claim is nonsense. So why is it that you can't see the difference between change and rate of change?

Rate of change? Good grief, another gimmick. Earths climate has been changing long before what humans are capable of ascertaining from the natural history record with greater variables than what humans have observed. The rest is just politics.

[novacova]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

The entire planet? Or just a small portion of it?

Ummm…Chiangmai. Why, is it bothersome?

[novacova]

33 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Scientific consensus on climate change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

It really doesn’t mean much since it’s politically screwed 

[placeholder]

Just now, novacova said:

Rate of change? Good grief, another gimmick. Earths climate has been changing long before what humans are capable of ascertaining from the natural history record with greater variables than what humans have observed. The rest is just politics.

How would you know that earth's climate has been changing  "with greater variables than what humans have observed"? Well, if humans haven't observed it, then did aliens inform you of this? Were they the ones who dismissed the field of paleoclimatology as a fake?

You've got nothing.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, novacova said:

More asphalt and concrete = higher readings and those are included. Get a grip.

You should probably read the post a few above before telling me to get a grip.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, novacova said:

Ummm…Chiangmai. Why, is it bothersome?

Maybe Chiang Mai is the world to you, or a statistically valid representative sample of it. Probably not so much to others who understand this it contains considerably less than a fraction of a percent of the entire land surface of the world.

[digger70]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes, you can believe whatever you want about anything at all.  But as long as you're going to make nonsensical claims about climate change, you're going to keep on getting hammered.

 

As for that link....inconsistent much? First you claim that the temperature measures are wrong. And now you cite a 20 year old paper that claims that the rise in temperature is due to the increasing activity of the sun. So now you accept global temperatures are on an upward trend? You sure do change your mind quickly.

Now your talking nonsense. you must read properly before you make remarks.

I never said that the temps are not rising  .I said that its a natural phenomenon that occurs every few thousand years .  now get off the case .

Have a nice day.

 

[KhunLA]

Away from the barstool, and back to the experts

Source: NOAA w/added notation by ME

Some of you may need to Google the definition of;

... higher

... lower

Take as much time as you need, don't hurt yourself.

Is the trend since pre 1970 now going upward ... YES

 

Has it leveled off ... apparently.

Will it get worse or better, higher or lower ... nobody knows

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

37 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Don't keep hammering all this  to us non believers . One can believe what one wants.

Some say it's man made global warming .

Some say it isn't  . 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/664137

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

[placeholder]

Just now, digger70 said:

Now your talking nonsense. you must read properly before you make remarks.

I never said that the temps are not rising  .I said that its a natural phenomenon that occurs every few thousand years .  now get off the case .

Have a nice day.

 

Well, the record shows that it's not a natural phenomone that occurs every few thousand years:

https://news.arizona.edu/story/global-temperatures-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented

[pub2022]

The rest of the world is heating faster than the rest of the world!

 

 

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Away from the barstool, and back to the experts

Source: NOAA w/added notation by ME

Some of you may need to Google the definition of;

... higher

... lower

Take as much time as you need, don't hurt yourself.

Is the trend since pre 1970 now going upward ... YES

 

Has it leveled off ... apparently.

Will it get worse or better, higher or lower ... nobody knows

 

 

As has been pointed out to you before, 2016 was the year of a major el nino. During those years, the Pacific releases vast amounts of heat. This is a well understood phenomenon. What keeps you from understanding that? In addition the last 2 years hosted a La Nina. Which has the opposite effect on global temperature average. This has also been pointed out to you. What keep you from understanding that? And the fact is, that even though those last 2 years were years with La Ninas, they were actually warmer on average than the years of the 1997-98 El Nino which was huge. Do you understand the concept of trends and regression analysis?

 

[novacova]

42 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, a while back a very eminent physicist name Richard Mueller, a prominent climate change sceptic, challenged climatologists on exactly those grounds. That they hadn't compensated for the heating effect of asphalt and concrete and the whole urban island heating effect problem.  Climatologists claimed they had made such adjustments. His objections drew the interest of denialists and they funded him to assemble a team of scientists from various disciplines to prove climatologists wrong. Guess what his team found? That climatologists had gotten it exactly right. No matter which way he sliced it, the temperature readings showed global warming was a real thing. One way they sliced it was just to take data from rural monitoring systems where there would be no such heating effect. They showed the same warming effect as did the entire data base.

 

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

 "We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions."

https://archive.ph/CNkxr

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

About Berkeley Earth
Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of climate skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012...

We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies.

https://berkeleyearth.org/about/#:~:text=OUR HISTORY,their initial findings in 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

Really? Good grief already, look at where these come from, 100% political.

22 minutes ago, JackGats said:

When it turned out global warming was not clear-cut they renamed it "climate change".

 

When it turned out climate change itself was not clear-cut they renamed it "rate of change".

 

What next?

 

Or maybe you thing you're the only one on this forum who understands secondary school maths?

Exactly. First it was the global warming hysteria. Then measurements showed the Earth was cooling. Well, then they came up with climate change, which is actually more accurate because the climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years, millions actually. It’s a variable moving target that those on that side keep playing with about every one of their hysterical narratives the variable targets keep moving, every single one of them. But what this is really about is manipulating the masses, political warfare. One either buys into it and even to the point of an obsession to win for self preservation, or remains calm with an open empirical independent mind. Personally I really don’t care what an individual thinks or accepts, they own it.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, novacova said:

Really? Good grief already, look at where these come from, 100% political.

Exactly. First it was the global warming hysteria. Then measurements showed the Earth was cooling. Well, then they came up with climate change, which is actually more accurate because the climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years, millions actually. It’s a variable moving target that those on that side keep playing with about every one of their hysterical narratives the variable targets keep moving, every single one of them. But what this is really about is manipulating the masses, political warfare. One either buys into it and even to the point of an obsession to win for self preservation, or remains calm with an open empirical independent mind. Personally I really don’t care what an individual thinks or accepts, they own it.

I guess your way to support accusations of hysteria is to indulge in paranoiac rant.

[JackGats]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Global warming is more than clear cut but here's why they changed it:

 

But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.

https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

Yes but I don't believe in that narrative. They changed it to hedge their bets after the rate of global warming didn't materialise. Especially so after it turned out temperature measurements had been taken too close to cities as cities grew (urban heat islands). They stigmatised sceptics for refusing to believe in anthropic global warming, but they refused to recognise there was an "anthropic" bias with measurements being taken too close to modern cities.

 

By definition the climate is that which changes. Throwing in rain, droughts, winds, coastal erosion, hurricanes just serves to allow cherry-picking events as they happen. The refusal to make allowances for population explosion whenever geohazards are being attributed to "climate change" is a scientific scandal. The world's population grew from an estimated 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7.9 billion in 2021!

 

[Woof999]

2 hours ago, digger70 said:

What is it about you that you don't understand that there's no proof as yet that the global warming is accelerated by the course of  man.

At the point where Earth becomes too hot to support human life, whether it was caused by man or not is kind of immaterial.

 

You'd likely need to be blind/deaf and/or stupid to believe that there is not an upward trend. If we can do something to slow or stop that trend without giving up everything that makes our lives tolerable would seem reasonable, likely sensible and maybe mandatory at some point.

 

I cannot see it happening though. As a species, we are far too self centered and short-sighted, me included.

[novacova]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

How would you know that earth's climate has been changing  "with greater variables than what humans have observed"? Well, if humans haven't observed it, then did aliens inform you of this? Were they the ones who dismissed the field of paleoclimatology as a fake?

You've got nothing.

Natural history has shown us that events of greater magnitude has occurred long before humans existed, and most cannot be accurately measured. Myself and no one here has anything to prove to anyone. Plain and simple.