The Hottest Day in History Just Occurred

[justoffal]

Any reputable scientist will tell you science is just guessing? Really? I don't think so.




And there's the "Climate changed naturally in the past, so it's impossible for humans to change climate" argument. All the bad arguments are coming out.

I'm not saying that Clare doesn't change. I'm saying that the Anthropogenic argument is pretty Shakey.

 

[toobfreak]

The Hottest Day in History Just Occurred​

What a laughable load of CRAP. The good news then: I guess that means it is all cooler from here on in?

Manmouth's Leftwing Fraud 'Science.'

 

[miketx]

 

[jc456]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say it's because no collection results matched "NOAA Climate Data Record'.

What data are you looking for?

If you'd like to know how to retrieve global station data and process it into an average, this page gives instructions.

<h2>A guide to the global temperature program TempLS, up to V4</h2>

TempLS is an R program that I have been running for some years at Moyhu. It computes a land/ocean temperature average in the style of Giste...

moyhu.blogspot.com

The noaa holds the data from what you all keep saying, yet, nothing was there

 

[mamooth]

Fascinating, how the deniers can't figure out how to time their propaganda.

You don't make up stories that the heat wave is a myth in the middle of a record-setting heat wave. Doing that makes someone look completely delusional and untrustworthy.

 

[EMH]

Climate Reanalyzer

Climate and weather data visualizations

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.

Meanwhile 8 million cubic miles of ice on Antarctica continues to grow and Earth climate data continues to read


NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO BREAKOUT in CANE Activity
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO OCEAN RISE

 

[Flopper]

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?

In the 21st century there is no need to have a single energy source. Electricity is easy to generate and there are many sources of energy, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear, CNG, natural gas, coal, mixed-fuel, biofuel, geothermal, tidal, etc. And yes fossil fuels will remain an energy source throughout the century. Hopefully by the 22nd century we have practical fusion reactors. However, if climate scientists are right we many need less energy with a declining world population.

 

[leftwinger]

In the 21st century there is no need to have a single energy source. Electricity is easy to generate and there are many sources of energy, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear, CNG, natural gas, coal, mixed-fuel, biofuel, geothermal, tidal, etc. And yes fossil fuels will remain an energy source throughout the century. Hopefully by the 22nd century we have practical fusion reactors. However, if climate scientists are right we many need less energy with a declining world population.

Tell it to the Birds you chop to bits you Communist clown.

 

[Flopper]

Meanwhile 8 million cubic miles of ice on Antarctica continues to grow and Earth climate data continues to read


NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO BREAKOUT in CANE Activity
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO OCEAN RISE

If only that was true. The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,”
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

 

[EMH]

Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected,

Laughable, given Antarctica had record high sea ice in 2014...


Where is the breakout in canes?

Show us a photo of something sinking due to "ocean rise?"


Y'all are pathetic liars and science invalids...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the 21st century there is no need to have a single energy source. Electricity is easy to generate and there are many sources of energy, wind, hydro, solar, nuclear, CNG, natural gas, coal, mixed-fuel, biofuel, geothermal, tidal, etc. And yes fossil fuels will remain an energy source throughout the century. Hopefully by the 22nd century we have practical fusion reactors. However, if climate scientists are right we many need less energy with a declining world population.

None of that makes "renewables" very reliable.

 

[Flopper]

Laughable, given Antarctica had record high sea ice in 2014...


Where is the breakout in canes?

Show us a photo of something sinking due to "ocean rise?"


Y'all are pathetic liars and science invalids...

And when Y'all have a high temp of a 137, y'all will be telling us how cold it is in Antarctic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 806341

Genocide and eugenics are the Final Solution to the "Climate Emergency"

 

[EMH]

And when Y'all have a high temp of a 137, y'all will be telling us how cold it is in Antarctic.

The level of moron that falls for one high temp and blames Co2 for it is the invalid level...


The first thing the Co2 fraud had to document was that increasing atmospheric Co2 warmed the atmosphere. According to the highly correlated satellite and balloon data, it didn't... and then your side FUDGED the data....

 

[EMH]

if climate scientists are right

WHEN have they EVER been RIGHT about ANYTHING?????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So should it be even hotterererer today?

 

[Crick]

This expresses some of the concerns. I have no clue how expert the writer is (if at all):


Source: How accurate are climate proxies in giving us a clear picture of global average temperatures throughout Earth history?

It’s funny. The more I dig, the less reliable proxy data appears. I’m not claiming it has no validity or no utility. I’m addressing only its basic lack of reliability.

You had no difficulty finding an explanation of issues with proxy data and with how they are dealt. The greater the number, variety and distribution of proxies used, the more accurate the results. Marcott's 2013 study of Holocene temperatures used 73 different proxies from all over the planet and the study includes significant statistical analysis of the accuracy of their data.

https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

You had no difficulty finding an explanation of issues with proxy data and with how they are dealt. The greater the number, variety and distribution of proxies used, the more accurate the results. Marcott's 2013 study of Holocene temperatures used 73 different proxies from all over the planet and the study includes significant statistical analysis of the accuracy of their data.

https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

Actually, proxy data remains suspect.

 

[Crick]

Actually, proxy data remains suspect.

It's not as good as instrumented data, but its good enough to see trends and events.

And what is it that you're afraid you'll miss?

 

[BackAgain]

It's not as good as instrumented data, but its good enough to see trends and events.

And what is it that you're afraid you'll miss?

I’m not afraid of a thing.

And I didn’t say, suggest or imply that I was.

I’m also not convinced it’s nearly close enough to accuracy to see “trends.”