All-time Heat Records Are Being Set All Over the World

[phands]

As reported on Slashdot.

It's settled science that global warming is accelerating....unless you're a religican or a member of the orange scumbag's regime....

As the U.K. begins a two-week heat wave, one pedestrian apparently found his leg sinking into tarmac, which had melted, requiring a call to emergency rescue services.

"All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week," reports the Washington Post, in an article titled "Red-Hot Planet," which they've updated throughout the week with new all-time heat records.From the normally mild summer climes of Ireland, Scotland and Canada to the scorching Middle East to Southern California, numerous locations in the Northern Hemisphere have witnessed their hottest weather ever recordedover the past week.... The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the heat is to blame for at least 54 deaths in southern Quebec, mostly in and near Montreal, which endured record high temperatures. In Northern Siberia, along the coast of the Arctic Ocean -- where weather observations are scarce -- model analyses showed temperatures soaring 40 degrees above normal on July 5, to over 90 degrees...

On Thursday, Africa likely witnessed its hottest temperature ever reliably measured. Ouargla, Algeria soared to 124.3 degrees (51.3 Celsius). If verified, it would surpass Africa's previous highest reliable temperature measurement of 123.3 degrees (50.7 Celsius) set July 13, 1961, in Morocco. No single record, in isolation, can be attributed to global warming. But collectively, these heat records are consistent with the kind of extremes we expect to see increase in a warming world.
Nasdaq Inc. even warned customers that high humidity in New Jersey was slowing the radio transmissions needed for high-speed trading, according to an article shared by Slashdot reader narcoossee. And Southern California has also experienced record-setting temperatures "well above 110 degrees across the region," sparking brush fires that burned homes in two counties.

Last July several U.S. cities experienced their hottest month ever, including Reno, Salt Lake City, and Miami. And Death Valley, California maintained an average temperature of 107.4 degrees for an entire month, the hottest month ever recorded on earth. "The temperature didn't fall below 89 degrees at any point in the month of July at Death Valley," reports the Washington Post, adding "On three nights, the 'low' temperature was 102-103 degrees."

And last month the Middle East city Quriyat (in Oman) endured more than two full days in which the temperature never dropped below 108.7 degrees.

 

[repoman]

Yeah, most of the energy is absorbed into the oceans. As far as the total energy goes, the air temp increase is frosting on the cake.

The increased ocean temps acts as a higher floor for air temps to soar from.

 

[phands]

Yeah, most of the energy is absorbed into the oceans. As far as the total energy goes, the air temp increase is frosting on the cake.

The increased ocean temps acts as a higher floor for air temps to soar from.

Indeed. And small ocean temperature rises need a huge amount of energy, because water has high specific heat capacity at 4200 Jkg^-1K^-1 , compared with air at 993. As heat moves from ocean back to air, a 1 degree local drop in water temperature means over 4 degrees rise in local air temperature. All that extra energy means much more violent weather, stronger hurricanes and colder colds and hotter hots. Plus, all that warmer water means faster melting of the ice caps, and that means inundation of low lying land. Goodbye to some of those shitty, religican southern states. If Florida, etc, were to disappear into the sea, the world would be better off.

 

[Treedbear]

As reported on Slashdot.

...

From the source article:

Extreme Heat Event in Northern Siberia and the coastal Arctic Ocean This Week
By Meteorologist Nick Humphrey on July 2, 2018 • ( 81 Comments )

This isn’t typically what I would write about in this blog, as I typically cover threatening ocean storms. However, this has implications for the Arctic Ocean and possibly mid-latitude weather. An extreme heat event for this particular region…with high temperatures of greater than 40 degrees F (greater than 20 C) above recent normals…will impact the coast of the Arctic Ocean (specifically the Laptev Sea and Eastern Siberian Sea) Wednesday-Friday. This will generate maximum daily temperatures as high as 90-95 degrees (32-35 C) near the open ocean coast!

Yes, you read that correctly.

Any way to verify this occurred??

 

[phands]

Any way to verify this occurred??

Yes...wait there with a thermometer. it's a prediction.

And remember that such warmings are not new - they're just getting hotter and more frequent. Remember that Greenland was named so because when Leif Ericsson arrived there, it was the short time in the year when it was actually green.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This is not caused by global warming. Who are you going to believe? Conservatives or your lying thermometer?

 

[Tigers!]

Any way to verify this occurred??

Yes...wait there with a thermometer. it's a prediction.

And remember that such warmings are not new - they're just getting hotter and more frequent. Remember that Greenland was named so because when Leif Ericsson arrived there, it was the short time in the year when it was actually green.

What industrial activity caused Greenland to be green i.e. be warm?
Leif Ericsson wasn't the first estate agent to exaggerate the local area for potential colonists.

 

[fast]

https://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k

 

[skepticalbip]

Any way to verify this occurred??

Yes...wait there with a thermometer. it's a prediction.

And remember that such warmings are not new - they're just getting hotter and more frequent. Remember that Greenland was named so because when Leif Ericsson arrived there, it was the short time in the year when it was actually green.

That's not quite true. Viking settlements thrived in Greenland for almost 500 years (more than twice as long as the U.S. has existed so far). They were finally driven out by the onset of the little ice age.

 

[TSwizzle]

In Scotland, Glasgow had its hottest day on record, hitting 89.4 degrees (31.9 Celsius). Previously, it was reported that Scotland set its hottest temperature on record of 91.8 degrees (33.2 Celsius) on June 28 in Motherwell, about 12 miles southeast of Glasgow. However, upon further evaluation, the U.K. Met Office determined the record was invalid due to an artificial heating source near the temperature sensor.

Yeah, I wonder how many other "records" were compromised.

 

[repoman]

In Scotland, Glasgow had its hottest day on record, hitting 89.4 degrees (31.9 Celsius). Previously, it was reported that Scotland set its hottest temperature on record of 91.8 degrees (33.2 Celsius) on June 28 in Motherwell, about 12 miles southeast of Glasgow. However, upon further evaluation, the U.K. Met Office determined the record was invalid due to an artificial heating source near the temperature sensor.

Yeah, I wonder how many other "records" were compromised.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I think it is needed.

TSwizzle, you and I have a moderate amount of agreement about what is and may happen in Europe from a major increase in the Muslim population (PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD WITH THE DETAILS OF THIS TOPIC!!!).

I am fully convinced that global warming is going to happen by a massive swath of data and granite solid theoretical framework. But I notice that there is an extremely high fraction of people who see the Islamic threat in Europe (maybe it is real, maybe we are paranoid pussies - but again let's not derail) are also very skeptical of global warming. You a threat detection system in your brain that some fuckers have made you turn off in relation of global warming. GW is insanely dangerous to our way of life.

I think that this is NOT an accident.

I suggest to dispassionately look at the data again, TSwizzle. This shit is real and is coming like a freight train. If a large Islamic population worst case in Europe is a 7 on the disaster scale, global warming is like a 9.4 or something like that. Muslims are not going to flood all your port cities with 1 meter minimum sea level rise via a terrorist squad. Muslims are not going to take hairdryers to your crops and wither them like upcoming intense summers will.

 

[fast]

For this particular thread, I am taking the position that climate change is real. Essentially, for the sake of any unwarranted arguing, I agree that global warming is a reality. So yes, the stance I'm taking here is not that of a climate change denier. Actions of men are contributing to a greater rise in the average global temperature than if we were to not do many of the things we do.

Not only that, I believe there is ample scientifically gathered data to support the position that those that deny climate change are in error. In other words, science backs my position.

With all of that out of the way, what I do deny is the connection people are drawing between record high temperatures and the fact climate change is real. I'm not oblivious to what skewed numbers do to averages. For instance, and to use a stock market analogy, record high prices will affect both short term and long term averages, so I'm not divorced from the notion that current data showing record highs does have an impact (and direction) on averages.

So why am I denying what it is I am? There are numerous factors that support the fact climate change is real; it's just that record high temperatures isn't one of them. Yes, if global average temperatures are on the rise, it wouldn't be unexpected to see record highs, but a) they're not necessary for it to be true, b) we could see the same thing if not true, and c) there is a serious disconnect from attributing record highs to the truth I've taken a position to support.

There is no "just look all around" and see. We cannot see climate--at least not in the same sense we can see the weather. Look at the video I posted earlier, as it supports what I'm saying. He warns us to watch the man. Looking at the dog is just what people are doing when citing the abundance of record highs. Substantially more less-than-average temperatures would statistically overwhelm even a higher than normal number of record highs.

So, my point is by no means to throw in any doubt about climate change and whether it's a fact of our lives. To the contrary, I'm telling you flat out that it's a scientific truth backed by actual scientific methods and procedures that overwhelmingly support the stance i'm taking about climate change being real. My point, the point I want to make, however, is that it's a mistake to come to the conclusion by faulty notion.

There are many signals that might suggest we should stop at an intersection. Light is red. Stop sign. Police signally us to. Accident. Tree in the road. Dumbass in a wheel chair doing wheelies in a circle. But, of all the signals, a green light isn't one of them. Bringing attention to record highs (I'm afraid) is not one of those signals.

 

[Underseer]

Dear conservatives and libertarians, who happen to be using the same arguments to hold the same positions on this particular issue:

If you know better than the vast majority of scientists from the relevant field, then use your superior knowledge of climatology to produce climate models that make more accurate predictions than the currently accepted science model.

That's it. That's all you have to do if you want to prove once and for all that you know better than the scientists what's going on.

Show us your climate model.

Plug the existing data into your climate model.

Demonstrate that your climate model produces more accurate predictions than the currently accepted climate model.

Publish your findings in a reputable journal.

If you do not do all of that, then why are you making science claims if you are unwilling to do the science part?

I don't care what the nice man on FOX News told you.

I don't care what you read in a Lord Monckton article.

I don't care what you read on some nutty right wing blog.

Watching FOX News, and reading op-ed pieces from conservative pundits and reading blogs on the Internet is not how science is done. That's now how science conclusions are established. The whole lot of you are behaving just like creationists: you're trying to make scientific claims without doing the science part.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Now put up or shut up.

Otherwise, the next time you declare yourselves to be more expert in science than the scientists, then we will simply stop taking you seriously. Because that's what we do when creationists declare themselves more expert in science than the scientists. That's what we do when the anti-GMO nuts declare themselves more expert in science than the scientists. That's what we do when the anti-vaccine nuts declare themselves more expert in science than the scientists.

You can't make science claims without doing the science part.

Reading web sites on the Internet doesn't count as scientific research.

Blogs don't count as reputable science journals.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

 

[repoman]

I don't fully agree, there are a precious few well moderated websites concerning climate change that serve as a forum and bridge for the layman to get reasonably accurate summations of real scientific journal articles.

https://skepticalscience.com/ (as in skeptical of climate change skeptics)

Is the best in my opinion. Does as good a job with paywalls as can be expected.

Lots of highly informed laymen and some professionals in the comment sections that can lay down many reputable journal citations.

Also, there are many primers debunking typical topics that shills use to confuse the general public.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Weekly research links
https://skepticalscience.com/new_research_20180625.html