Global temperatures hit the highest levels in recorded history on Sunday, according to preliminary data from Europe’s top climate monitor — another worrying sign of how human-caused climate change is pushing the planet into dangerous new territory.
Sunday was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth, scientists say
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
The results from the Copernicus Climate Change Service show the planet’s average temperature on July 21 was 17.09 degrees Celsius (62.76 degrees Fahrenheit) — breaking a record set only last year. The historic day comes on the heels of 13 straight months of unprecedented temperatures and the hottest year scientists have ever seen.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Okay, so it was the hottest day in like the last 50 out of 4.5 billion or so years. What about it?
Nothing. Everything is meaningless.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Well, not everything, but this is largely but not entirely, meaningless.
But if you give them your money and your virgin daughters. they can appease the gods.....
Obtenebrator
Verified User
Yeah, looking at one data point in a time-series is not usually sufficient to establish a trend, but on the other hand we keep breaking these temperature records that are going up and up and up while we are supposed to be heading back into a new continental glaciation event.
It's almost as if we seeing what happens when you pump gigatons of excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it finally overcomes the negative forcing of Milankovich Cycles.
Almost as if science is real.
But, nah, let's just hope this was a "one off" kind of event along with all the other "one-off" events we've been living through.
We are the frogs being boiled in the pot. We needn't be so rash as to jump out of the pot. Let's just stay here and see how it all works out.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
That's funny. Because when things get even worse you'll be looking for someone to sacrifice to get us out of the bad scenario.
When all along all we had to do was actually listen to the scientists and experts.
OH NOOOOZZZZZ we are all going to die unless we give the grifters our wealth and our freedom.
Kind of convenient that the answer to this "crisis" is to give your side absolute power and put the majority into abject poverty to be enslaved to be elite....
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The question is what is / are the causes? I'm not buying the anthropogenic CO2 line.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
It's not just CO2 but also a number of other human-generated greenhouse gases as well as land use changes (deforestation, etc.) but CO2 is a biggie because it is massively produced by human activity (we even know the current rise in CO2 is largely due to humans from the isotopic signature in the C) and excess CO2, unlike excess H2O, can't re-equilibrate back out of the atmosphere quickly. It relies on the carbon cycle which is much slower than the hydrologic cycle.
Right now when you look at all the possible forcings that can be taking a role in the warming the only ones that really fully line up with the trend we've seen since the mid-19th century have been "human forcings".
Natural forcings DEFINITELY do play a role, the IPCC is quite explicit on this. They do. But the data don't make sense until you factor in human forcings (like our dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year etc.)
My favorite graph compares temperature rise since 1850 and then they try to "recreate" the same trend using ONLY natural forcings and then ONLY human forcings and then BOTH in combination.
Natural forcings alone don't make a trend that looks like the ACTUAL temperature trend. Human forcings alone looks a lot closer but the two together really line up and explain the data quite well. Attribution studies are finding that at least 50% of the warming we've seen since the 1950's ahs likely been due to human activity.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It is not possible to accurately measure Earth's temperature. For starters, there are not enough thermometers being used.
The typical Church of Global Warming sermon. blah.
Invalid data. Summarily dismissed.
There is nothing to "monitor" re: climate. Climate does not change, as climate is unquantifiable.
Fear mongering based on meaningless buzzwords.
I do not accept Washington Post as a valid source of anything. You cannot use them as a source with me.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Made up numbers are meaningless, dude.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Invalid data is meaningless. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy.
"Supposed to be" is not the language of science. Those words, typically proceeded by the Marxist "we" as was done here, are a dead giveaway to the absence of science.
Define "excess CO2".
Define "greenhouse gases".
Define "negative forcing".
Explain how "excess CO2" generates the additional energy that is required in order to increase Earth's temperature.
Almost as if science is completely absent from your position on this matter.
You're not making any sense.
You're still not making any sense.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
The question is: Where is the additional energy coming from that is required in order to increase Earth's temperature?
Of course, the overarching question is: Why should any rational adult believe this?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Summarily dismissed due to being entirely based on made up numbers and meaningless buzzwords.It's not just CO2 but also a number of other human-generated greenhouse gases as well as land use changes (deforestation, etc.) but CO2 is a biggie because it is massively produced by human activity (we even know the current rise in CO2 is largely due to humans from the isotopic signature in the C) and excess CO2, unlike excess H2O, can't re-equilibrate back out of the atmosphere quickly. It relies on the carbon cycle which is much slower than the hydrologic cycle.
Right now when you look at all the possible forcings that can be taking a role in the warming the only ones that really fully line up with the trend we've seen since the mid-19th century have been "human forcings".
Natural forcings DEFINITELY do play a role, the IPCC is quite explicit on this. They do. But the data don't make sense until you factor in human forcings (like our dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year etc.)
My favorite graph compares temperature rise since 1850 and then they try to "recreate" the same trend using ONLY natural forcings and then ONLY human forcings and then BOTH in combination.
Natural forcings alone don't make a trend that looks like the ACTUAL temperature trend. Human forcings alone looks a lot closer but the two together really line up and explain the data quite well. Attribution studies are finding that at least 50% of the warming we've seen since the 1950's ahs likely been due to human activity.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
In climate science they don't focus on a single "temperature" number like your body temperature, but rather the CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE over time. What is measured is called the "temperature ANOMALY" or the temperature relative to a baseline temperature at the specific point. So if temps are overall going up but the globe is covered by a huge range of temperatures we can track the RELATIVE CHANGE as opposed to measuring a single global temp.
This is a silly point.
All of those are freely available to you. I suggest you learn some of the topic before expressing an "opinion" on it.
It doesn't. What it does is move the level in the atmosphere where the IR photons which are absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere and transferred to other CO2 molecules after being re-radiated out finally radiate back out into space. The overall energy balance of the earth's atmosphere is a balance between incoming and outgoing.
If the level in the atmosphere at which the IR photons are re-radiated back out into space gets higher and higher the physics of that radiation become less efficient meaning lower down at the surface will be a warming. Personally I think of it as a line of traffic at a stoplight backing up as the stoplight gets shorter and shorter.
I'm the one who actually understands some of the science and I've attempted to explain it to you. It is up to you to learn some basic science as well.
Again, it is up to you to learn some basic science so the stuff I'm posting here will make sense. I wouldn't expect a first grader to understand the topic either.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
What you actually meant was "Summarily dismissed because you don't understand what was posted".
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
There's no such thing.
Who is "they"?
Any "change in temperature" first requires multiple ACCURATE temperature readings. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. There aren't enough thermometers to do so.
Any "temperature ANOMALY" first requires multiple ACCURATE temperature readings. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. There aren't enough thermometers to do so.
Continued Marxist "we"... continued made up numbers... continued ignoring of any and all science.
This is a silly response.
So you can't define any of them?? Got it.
So there's no temperature increase. Got it.
You cannot create additional energy by redistributing it.
So there's equilibrium? Got it. So where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from then that is required to increase Earth's temperature? Here, you are stating that Earth's temperature remains the same.
Again, you cannot create additional energy by redistributing it. You are violating Stefan Boltzmann.
Projection.
Projection.
Obtenebrator
Verified User
What on earth would YOU know about it?
But it is accurate to measure a single point's temperature. And then compare it to a baseline for the same timeframe within the year and calculate an ANOMALY (or difference from the baseline).
This is a measure of overall temperature change which can be applied more broadly in terms of geography.
Are you actually expecting serious answers from me? Because that's what I'm giving you but you come on here with this sort of shit which makes me think you are either NOT honest about the discussion or you are simply too ill-informed on the topic that you can't possibly stick to the topic.
No one EXCEPT YOU has indicated that energy is being created. I tried to explain it to you.
Seriously I can stop wasting my time if you are going to continue spouting stupidity. I suggest you learn a bit of science BEFORE you try to tell scientists how to do their jobs.