"Rise in severity of hottest days outpaces global ...." Topic

… average temperature increase

"While our planet's average annual temperature has increased at a steady pace in recent decades, there has been an alarming jump in the severity of the hottest days of the year during that same period, with the most lethal effects in the world's largest cities.

Engineers at the University of California, Irvine have learned that urban centers with more than 5 million inhabitants and parts of Eurasia and Australia have been hardest hit by the accelerated growth in short-term, extreme-heat events, resulting in lost lives, reduced agricultural productivity and damage to infrastructure…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

UCI, yeah right. Totally unbiased with no agenda, not!

Wow, thanks Tango, that sure explains the record number of below freezing days we've had here. And the last few mild summers. Some people will never admit to being wrong.

So it effects the urban centers the most? Sounds like a problem that will sort itself out once said urban centers are eliminated by AGW.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Engineers at the University of California, Irvine

UCI, yeah right. Totally unbiased with no agenda, not!

Yup once they mentioned Engineers at UCI means that this report will be filled with completely bias information.

UCI, yeah right. Totally unbiased with no agenda, not!

Yup once they mentioned Engineers at UCI means that this report will be filled with completely bias information.

I know that this so inconvenient, but you wouldn't happen to have any proof to back such statements?

Of course, you don't. Just the usual denier blather about bias/conspiracy/etc with ZERO substantiation. Which is equivalent of a dull petulant 5 year old screaming "IS NOT!!!!"

Add to that the usual conflation of climate and weather.

CorroPredo, your confusion can be answered here, on the topic of the weather in San Antonio.

TMP link

As for UCI, it's ranked 9th in public Universities in the US and 99th in the world. You guys are right! What a crap-hole!

And having a high academic obviously precludes having any biases…

At least in the US last I saw the 1930s had the greatest number of record breaking high temperatures.

Or did someone find a way to adjust those records as well?

Interestingly with all of this never seen before heating and the record melting occurring in Greenland that there are still Viking settlements there still covered by glaciers and that they are finding thousands of artifacts uncovered by melting ice in Norway.

link

So are we thawing or are we freezing? Or are we freezing the natural climate change?

Dan
PS. I'm surprised the price of tin foil hasn't skyrocketed yet.
TMP link

And having a high academic obviously precludes having any biases…

…..that can be demonstrated, especially after bringing up the topic of being biased and agenda driven.

There, I finished the sentence for you. How about answering Charlie12's question?

At least in the US last I saw the 1930s had the greatest number of record breaking high temperatures.

I doubt that…..all the 1930's? And selecting record hot days is not that useful. How about record years? According to the NOAA here are the hottest years in the US record:

link

Whilst 1934 was the sixth hottest year in US recorded history, it was actually a relatively cool year globally. And that is why it is called global warming. But nice cherry picking.

Interestingly with all of this never seen before heating and the record melting occurring in Greenland that there are still Viking settlements there still covered by glaciers and that they are finding thousands of artifacts uncovered by melting ice in Norway.

I don't know where you got that info, but it wasn't from the link you provided. Your comment above is misleading. The glaciers in Greenland are about 2-3 million years old. So their melting isn't uncovering any Viking settlements.

As for the melting of the mountain ice to reveal thousands of artifacts in Norway, you seem to be overstating the case. The top layers of ice are melting and exposing lower layers of ice where the artifacts reside. Don't try to make it sound like the ancient ice fields were totally bare and the land was free from snow and ice. To whit, some of the artifacts found were the remains of ancient skis. The hunters hunt in the mountains on the ice field in the summer, and lose some artifacts, which are covered up by subsequent winter deposits of snow and ice. Subsequent melts uncover them. The artifacts go back thousands of years. The only conclusions to be drawn are that there are variations in snow and ice deposition throughout the years.

The article is hardly an indictment against global warming.

Dan, I'll see your:

and raise you:

As for the aluminum, I doubt we'll run out soon. It makes up 8% of the Earth's crust by mass. That's a lot of conspiracy headgear.

At least in the US last I saw the 1930s had the greatest number of record breaking high temperatures.

Or did someone find a way to adjust those records as well?

Well now there you go trying to put in real actual facts.

Don't you know that every new Storm is the worst ever.

Or that any new record is the greatest ever.

It is all about how you present the data you want to get across and not about presenting actual truth.

I know that this so inconvenient, but you wouldn't happen to have any proof to back such statements?

Why yes just look at the weather is doing and has been doing for the past several decades.

No real change and nothing that is happening now is any different than what has happened in the past.

But to UCI and many others what is happening is due to Climate Change (they had to stop using Global Warming since that really was not happening).

Today is it raining and in the low 50's here, last week it was raining and in the low 40's.

Changes in the climate happens each and every day on this planet and has been happening for millions and millions of years.

They pick and choose just which information that they will use and if some number does not agree with their Agenda then it get thrown out.

Mithmee

Here is a fine example of selective use and presentation of data:

TMP link

And, the funniest part, is that they continue to deny that there's an agenda, or they try to claim that it's everyone else that has the agenda. :)

Dan

And, the funniest part, is that they continue to deny that there's an agenda….

Putting words in my mouth?

I am not denying there is any agenda as no one here has shown this agenda to exist. This "agenda" and "bias" was claimed by two members on this thread. Charlie 12 asked for substantiation for these claims and it's been the sounds of crickets ever since. So it's hard to deny something that hasn't got any substance.

Until the I'll invoke Hitchens' Razor:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

No one has actually addressed the OP. I don't see the point of continuing.

This "agenda" and "bias" was claimed by two members

Probably because this would take the tread into the Realm of the Blue Fez.

We can discuss whether there is an Agenda or Bias whole-hearty over on the Blue Fez.

I don't see the point of continuing.

Well we do since that report more than likely just cherry pick certain days that were warmer than normal.

I would put forth that the temp's from this year's winter will be totally disregard because they were colder than normal.

Thus doesn't help push the Agenda.

Well we do since that report more than likely just cherry pick certain days that were warmer than normal.

Here's the Environment Canada historical climate data for the city where I grew up for December 27th 2017 – the heart of that cold snap. It was cold, -35 Celsius, and -47 with the wind chill (-31F/-52F for those using that barbaric relic of a temperature system) link However, the fact that is was very cold where I was on that day (Timmins ON) has little to do with the AVERAGE global temperature. Look at the margin of the image for regional averages. All of them are running hotter than the baseline.

But look at the rest of the world – especially Siberia. The rest of the world is running hot, and that warm Siberian air helped push that arctic air mass into North America (it's more complicated, but it works as a thumbnail sketch). Where's the conspiracy?

'Why yes just look at the weather is doing and has been doing for the past several decades.

No real change and nothing that is happening now is any different than what has happened in the past.'

In my part of the world there have been dramatic changes in climate. The East Australia Current has pushed south. It has bought fish species that never existed into my part of the world. Average sea temperature has changed dramatically. link When I was a child, the local mountain always had snow left over from winter well into mid summer -- that is gone now -- it doesnt even last through winter. PDF link

Probably because this would take the tread into the Realm of the Blue Fez.

BS!

Show how the science put out by the "agenda driven universities and researchers" is incorrect. If they are publishing agenda driven lies then there should be lots of scientific criticisms. If not, then your unsubstantiated claims can be disregarded for the nonsense they are. No politics is required.

I would put forth that the temp's from this year's winter will be totally disregard because they were colder than normal.

This is demonstrably wrong, plain and simple. The temperature may be colder around you, that doesn't mean the entire globe is not warmer…….it is. This has been pointed out many times to you. You seem to be impervious to understanding.

Where's the conspiracy?

Between his ears.

Hey Martin,

Nice graph, but cue the usual "University of Maine is agenda driven" nonsense. Apparently "agenda driven" is synonymous with "I don't like their findings" on this board.

Just like every university Biology Dept. is "agenda driven" to a creationist and every Geography Dept. is "agenda driven" to a Flat Earther. All part of the conspiracy, I guess.

Bowman

Geesh, Dude, I never said you! LOL

Dan

Probably because this would take the tread into the Realm of the Blue Fez.

We can discuss whether there is an Agenda or Bias whole-hearty over on the Blue Fez.

Bull…. Of course, there is the small problem of trying to discuss something THAT DOESN'T EXIST…

BTW, I'm still waiting for your "evidence"….

Just like every university Biology Dept. is "agenda driven" to a creationist and every Geography Dept. is "agenda driven" to a Flat Earther. All part of the conspiracy, I guess.

Of course, Bowman! Its a VAST conspiracy. Across MANY disciplines. And is EXTREMELY well coordinated. Never mind you can't get 5 researchers to agree on where to go for lunch, much less anything else!

I'm glad to see all the choir boys have been heard from mocking any who don't walk in lockstep with their one true religion.

As I've said before, for some people it's much easier to curse the darkness than light a candle…

Yes, curses and lighting candles always the fun part of every religion.

I'm glad to see all the choir boys have been heard from mocking any who don't walk in lockstep with their one true religion.

Your reading comprehension fails you.

None are so blind….

None are so blind…

Yes, YOU truly are….

Bowman

Geesh, Dude, I never said you! LOL

No you used "they", which is pretty inclusive given the context.

In 1633 Galileo was brought before the Roman Inquisition and put on trial for his astronomical observations and and concluded that he was "vehemently suspect of heresy," and imprisoned.

link

It is perhaps the most famous example of the ongoing conflict between science v. religion, or data/facts v. belief.

I'm glad to see all the choir boys have been heard from mocking any who don't walk in lockstep with their one true religion.

Equating conclusions that are the product of scientific method, data, facts, testing, and retesting, with religion that is founded entirely on belief can only be the product of a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what science is all about.

On the other side of the coin, isn't mocking science by equating it with religion in the way it has in the above quote also mocking religion? Of course it does.

Of course, Bowman! Its a VAST conspiracy. Across MANY disciplines. And is EXTREMELY well coordinated. Never mind you can't get 5 researchers to agree on where to go for lunch, much less anything else!

Bingo.

I have to go make breakfast. It is my hypothesis that if I don't do it right now, there will be hell-to-pay from my wife and dog.

I'll let you all now how the experiment went later.

Just to be clear, it's not the science, it's the people who treat science as if it were a religion. My poor understanding of science is that questioning the results is at the root of the scientific method. My equally poor understanding of religion is that no one is allowed to question your articles of faith and any who do are fair game.

Some of our fellows are treating science as a religion.

Just to be clear, it's not the science, it's the people who treat science as if it were a religion. My poor understanding of science is that questioning the results is at the root of the scientific method. My equally poor understanding of religion is that no one is allowed to question your articles of faith and any who do are fair game.

I'll repeat some advice I got when I was getting ready for my comprehensive PhD exam (year 2 milestone). The professor who was leading the initial meeting to explain the process to us that September explained that our reading lists would often include the bedrock of our respective fields of study, if we're studying alpine streams, we don't really need to prove that liquid water is wet and flows downhill, unless we come across evidence that would lead us to question those types of assumptions, and at that point you're probably wrong (keep reading), but if not you're set for life ;-)

All that to say that many of the claims in the denialsphere could have been legitimate questions in the 1980s and early 90s, but since then frontier of research has advanced in a concillient manner, whereas the only thing concillient thing about denier talking points is negations – even if the proposed mechanism of action are mutually exclusive. (relevant paper here: link )

Martin,

Thanks for the input, as alway, your response was both detailed and enlightening.

Predicting the future is always difficult (some popular ones from my I'll spend youth include the population bomb by the 1990, end of oil by 2000, and Flying cars just to name just a few)

One of your last points was that the questions would have been valid in the 1980 and 1990's. If that is to suggest that the AGW predictions were flawed then is it not even remotely possiable they could be flawed now?

One of your last points was that the questions would have been valid in the 1980 and 1990's. If that is to suggest that the AGW predictions were flawed then is it not even remotely possible they could be flawed now?

Back then we had very little to go on in terms of modeling feedback mechanisms such as cooling aerosols, particle-cloud interactions, dynamic modeling… Considering how crude the early models were, there were very much on the nose. It turns out that the biggest control nob is CO2, and the rest more or less cancel each other out. For example, we had an idea from paleoclimate evidence that the "iris effect" was probably not really a big contributer, but we there was a lack of evidence for or against it. As time went on, the evidence for it not being a big contributer piled up, and very little piled up for it.

Just to be clear, it's not the science, it's the people who treat science as if it were a religion.

Understood. Questioning the science is natural and actually encouraged (just a scan of the comments following an online paper proves that). And you're correct on that.

What rankles me is when the deniers respond to the science with bald accusations of bias, agenda and conspiracy with absolutely nothing to support their argument. Its as if their position is that by merely making the accusation will make it so. That's not the way science (or any discipline, for that matter) works. Hitchens' Razor comes to mind:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

I'm glad to see all the choir boys have been heard from mocking any who don't walk in lockstep with their one true religion.

Just to be clear, it's not the science, it's the people who treat science as if it were a religion.

Vince, can you give a specific example of this "choir boy" behavior in this thread? Until then, I'll state that it's less religious dogmatism than an example of Hitchen's razor. You are simple mistaken by adhering to the logical fallacy of a false equivalency.

If that is to suggest that the AGW predictions were flawed then is it not even remotely possible they could be flawed now?

Of course it is. But if that were really true, then where is the newer research pointing to another cause outside of AGW? I would really pay attention to the concept of consilience in science and research. Martin has supplied a good link. This is a concept that is ignored by all deniers.

According to the official 2016 global report from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information,

[2016] marks the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest.) The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.

By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows.

By 2030, however, the heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases begins to overcome the oceans' thermal inertia, and projected temperature pathways begin to diverge, with unchecked carbon dioxide emissions likely leading to several additional degrees of warming by the end of the century.

link

Welcome to the choirboys, Rallynow.