The Hottest Day in History Just Occurred

[initforme]

People working outside should have to take mandatory triple long breaks. It should be law.

 

[80zephyr]

And boy howdy is it a stupid one.

You're claiming that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate.

That's literally every bit as stupid as saying since forest fires were natural in the past, humans can't cause forest fires.

That makes you come across as kind of an imbecile.

And boy howdy is it a stupid one.

You're claiming that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate.

That's literally every bit as stupid as saying since forest fires were natural in the past, humans can't cause forest fires.

That makes you come across as kind of an imbecile.

Never said that. What I am saying is that the historical record is crystal clear. Rising temperatures are NOT new to the planet. And anyone that says they can tell us just how much of an impact humanity has is a liar.

 

[Crick]

Never said that. What I am saying is that the historical record is crystal clear.

As I just pointed out to Ding (I think it was). The historical record is millions of times longer than AGW and CO2 and temperatures change at a tiny fraction of the rates seen in glacial / interglacial cycles. You cannot say the two process are the same.

Rising temperatures are NOT new to the planet.

Obviously, but a source of CO2 like humans burning fossil fuels IS new to this planet.

And anyone that says they can tell us just how much of an impact humanity has is a liar.

Someone who says what you just said is scientifically illiterate. The warming impact can be calculated. It's not easy to quantify, but at this stage, with the amount of data collected and the amount of study performed, it's very easy and very certain to say that humans have had an effect. That human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming is now irrefutable.

 

[ding]

As I just pointed out to Ding (I think it was). The historical record is millions of times longer than AGW and CO2 and temperatures change at a tiny fraction of the rates seen in glacial / interglacial cycles. You cannot say the two process are the same.

Why would the radiative forcing of CO2 and the feedback from CO2 be different?

 

[80zephyr]

As I just pointed out to Ding (I think it was). The historical record is millions of times longer than AGW and CO2 and temperatures change at a tiny fraction of the rates seen in glacial / interglacial cycles. You cannot say the two process are the same.

Obviously, but a source of CO2 like humans burning fossil fuels IS new to this planet.

Someone who says what you just said is scientifically illiterate. The warming impact can be calculated. It's not easy to quantify, but at this stage, with the amount of data collected and the amount of study performed, it's very easy and very certain to say that humans have had an effect. That human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming is now irrefutable.

During the last warming cycle before the collapse into another ice age, was CO2 going up? ,

 

[Flopper]

Climate Reanalyzer

climatereanalyzer.org

The hottest day in history just occurred. The global average temperature was 17.18C, the hottest in the historical record.

Discuss.

Does this mean global warming is very real, and the rational people have been spot-on correct for the past 40 years? Yes.

Does this mean the denier cultists have been laughably wrong for the past decade? Yes.

If you want to put forth a "DERP! DERP! ALL THE DATA IS FAKED! DEEEEERRRRRRP!" conspiracy as a way to run from the hard data, you have to back it up, with something more than a link to a kook conspiracy website. Explain it in your own words, then link to primary data sources. If you won't, that's an admission you're making it all up.

If you'd like to claim the warming is all-natural, provide evidence for that. Don't just claim it. Back it up.

Needless to say, trolls will be instantly reported. Mods, please don't reward trolls by moving a thread to the Rubber Room after trolls overwhelm it, as the trolls always attempt to do.

The hottest days on record are not particularly meaningful in projecting climate change, however the trend of increasing temperatures of regions and cities around world over the last 80 or so years is important. The problem in using this data is that it is subject to ever changing weather patterns so that we only get trends pointing to higher temperatures. The predictive value of this data is not good.

The best data shows changes in the temperature of the earth both seawater and land masses which eliminates most of the effects of regional weather patterns on climate. So one number that is an average of thousands of temperatures readings from around the planet is very significant to scientist but not to the general public because it is reported in small fractions of a degree change Celsius. A change in temperature of 10 or 20 degrees might be see as a problem by the public, not fractions of degree. The general public just not understand how devastation those tiny changes in the earths temperature will be in the coming decades and centuries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The general public just not understand how devastation those tiny changes in the earths temperature will be in the coming decades and centuries.

How devastating will a tiny change be in the coming decades and centuries?

 

[Flopper]

How devastating will a tiny change be in the coming decades and centuries?

If I lived in Phoenix, I wouldn't be taking out a 30 year mortgage. Between 1985 and 2005, there was average of 7 day when temperature reached over 109.9. It has reached 20 days so far this year. By 2050, it is expected to reach 44 days. It is quite possible if not likely that by 2050, Phoenix will be uninhabitable by those that can not spend their entire summer in air conditioning and the current electric grid will not support the required electric load needed.

While most world leaders have been preaching reduction in fossil fuels, we are yet to see any real reduction. I don't expect a reduction until we start seeing a steep reduction in world population.

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I lived in Phoenix, I wouldn't be taking out a 30 year mortgage. Between 1985 and 2005, there was average of 7 day when temperature reached over 109.9 By 2010-2020, the number was up to 18. By 2050, it is expected to reach 44 days. It is quite possible if not likely that by 2050, Phoenix will be uninhabitable by those that can not spend there entire summer in air conditioning and the current electric grid will not support the required electric load needed.

While most world leaders have been preaching reduction in fossil fuels, we are yet to see any real reduction. I don't expect a reduction until we start seeing a steep reduction in world population.

​

2050?
Green fucktards will destroy the grid much sooner with their wind and solar idiocy, not to mention
their EV mandates.

 

[Flopper]

2050?
Green fucktards will destroy the grid much sooner with their wind and solar idiocy, not to mention
their EV mandates.

In Phoenix solar panels will be the only thing that might prevent a mass exit in summer, however even that is doubtful. In 2022, 21.5% of our energy came from renewables, 10.5% wind and 3.4% solar. By 2050, it is expected that reenables will produce over 40% of our energy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In Phoenix solar panels will be the only thing that might prevent a mass exit in summer, however even that is doubtful. In 2022, 21.5% of our energy came from renewables, 10.5% wind and 3.4% solar. By 2050, it is expected that reenables will produce over 40% of our energy.

solar panels dont work in extreme heat dumbass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In Phoenix solar panels will be the only thing that might prevent a mass exit in summer, however even that is doubtful. In 2022, 21.5% of our energy came from renewables, 10.5% wind and 3.4% solar. By 2050, it is expected that reenables will produce over 40% of our energy.

By 2050, it is expected that reenables will produce over 40% of our energy.

Yeah, more unreliable energy is just what we need when demand is increasing.

 

[Flopper]

solar panels dont work in extreme heat dumbass.

Solar panels are built to withstand temperatures up to 149 degrees Fahrenheit and sill operate. At a 185 degrees the panels will be destroy them. If temperatures go this high, we won't be needing any energy and the climate change problem be will resolved.

 

[Flopper]

By 2050, it is expected that reenables will produce over 40% of our energy.

Yeah, more unreliable energy is just what we need when demand is increasing.

Renewables are very reliable. As long as the breeze blows and the sun shines, energy is waiting to be utilized. The caveat is they must be connected to a major grid system that will eventually cover the country. Currently we have 3 independent grids in the US, Eastern, Western, and the Texas interconnectors.

Throughout most of this century we will still have fossil fuel power plants that will produce a significant part of our energy needs. However even if we are successful at eliminating almost all of our fossil fuel plants by the end of the century, we may be just mitigating climate change as Asia and Africa and parts of Europe are way behind us.

 

[The Duke]

"When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer ... Superstition ain't the way"

-- Stevie Wonder

Oh no you didn't!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Renewables are very reliable. As long as the breeze blows and the sun shines, energy is waiting to be utilized. The caveat is they must be connected to a major grid system that will eventually cover the country. Currently we have 3 independent grids in the US, Eastern, Western, and the Texas interconnectors.

Throughout most of this century we will still have fossil fuel power plants that will produce a significant part of our energy needs. However even if we are successful at eliminating almost all of our fossil fuel plants by the end of the century, we may be just mitigating climate change as Asia and Africa and parts of Europe are way behind us.

Renewables are very reliable. As long as the breeze blows and the sun shines, energy is waiting to be utilized.

How many hours of energy do those solar panels provide in December?

The caveat is they must be connected to a major grid system that will eventually cover the country.

How does the grid connection help solar power in Chicago in December?
Or at midnight?

However even if we are successful at eliminating almost all of our fossil fuel plants by the end of the century,

What will we replace them with?

 

[Crick]

solar panels dont work in extreme heat dumbass.

Yes they do. Their loss of output is trivial.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

YouTube suppressed this pushback video on heat wave alarmism – let’s give it a second life​

2 days ago

Anthony Watts

118 Comments

Please tweet and share.
From Jim Lakely at the Heartland Institute:

A viral heat wave video was just nuked by YouTube. It’s not just no longer being promoted by YouTube’s algorithm, it’s being actively suppressed. It went from 8,051 total views between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. yesterday to 181 views in that same time period 24 hours later





A video doesn’t drop in views by 98% in 24 hours “organically.” That is literally impossible — especially since it has the most comments and likes of any of our videos in months. Those are the things that YouTube says its smiles upon because viewers are choosing to engage with the video. People engaged with videos keep watching YouTube, which makes revenue for Alphabet/Google/YouTube. This was done on purpose by ideologues in power at YouTube.

We suspect that many of our climate skeptic videos are suppressed by YouTube, but it’s very hard to prove. How do you prove someone at YouTube is suppressing views to your content? Maybe your video just isn’t “hitting” with audiences. So make better videos next time! Well, this is about as clear as any evidence can be,

YouTube suppressed this pushback video on heat wave alarmism – let’s give it a second life • Watts Up With That?

Please tweet and share. From Jim Lakely at the Heartland Institute:A viral heat wave video was just nuked by YouTube. It's not just no longer being promoted by YouTube's algorithm, it's being actively suppressed. It went from 8,051 total views between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. yesterday to 181 views in...

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[buttercup]

YouTube suppressed this pushback video on heat wave alarmism – let’s give it a second life​

2 days ago

Anthony Watts

118 Comments

Please tweet and share.
From Jim Lakely at the Heartland Institute:

A viral heat wave video was just nuked by YouTube. It’s not just no longer being promoted by YouTube’s algorithm, it’s being actively suppressed. It went from 8,051 total views between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. yesterday to 181 views in that same time period 24 hours later





A video doesn’t drop in views by 98% in 24 hours “organically.” That is literally impossible — especially since it has the most comments and likes of any of our videos in months. Those are the things that YouTube says its smiles upon because viewers are choosing to engage with the video. People engaged with videos keep watching YouTube, which makes revenue for Alphabet/Google/YouTube. This was done on purpose by ideologues in power at YouTube.

We suspect that many of our climate skeptic videos are suppressed by YouTube, but it’s very hard to prove. How do you prove someone at YouTube is suppressing views to your content? Maybe your video just isn’t “hitting” with audiences. So make better videos next time! Well, this is about as clear as any evidence can be,

YouTube suppressed this pushback video on heat wave alarmism – let’s give it a second life • Watts Up With That?

Please tweet and share. From Jim Lakely at the Heartland Institute:A viral heat wave video was just nuked by YouTube. It's not just no longer being promoted by YouTube's algorithm, it's being actively suppressed. It went from 8,051 total views between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. yesterday to 181 views in...

wattsupwiththat.com

Not surprising. YouTube these days purposely hides anything that goes against the Establishment's Narrative. Not just with this topic but with any controversial topic. Videos that expose The Narrative get thrown down the memory hole.

Here's a quote, just for the dupes on this thread:

 

[ReinyDays]

The general public just not understand how devastation those tiny changes in the earths temperature will be in the coming decades and centuries.

I'm with you until the end for the most part ... how devastating is a tiny change over centuries? ... the Brooklyn Bridge will be two feet lower in 100 years ... so what? ... are you being hyperbolic? ... exaggerating to make a point? ... where does your point end and the exaggeration start? ...

Weather is devastating ... climate is not ... except polar climates, Köppen Class E ... average weather at the poles is fucked in every way ...