• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,293
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Point me to the correlation. I have not seen nor do I understand there to be a strong connection between solar activity and global temperature rise. Upper atmosphere temperatures, which do often correlate with solar activity, are not the same nor do they have the same inputs as tropospheric temperatures.

I linked a solar study from Max Planck Institute above (post 93). I also included a chart of solar activity from that study that could easily be confused for the IPCC global temperature chart if someone doesn't look at the labels for the axis. If two graphs covering thousands of years can easily be confused then the correlation is obvious. Note: correlation does not mean causation but such close correlation over thousands of years does certainly suggest a strong indication of causation.

Correlations:
Where the IPCC chart shows global temperatures higher, the Max Planck study shows solar activity higher. Where the IPCC chart shows global temperatures lower, the Max Planck study shows solar activity lower. And this trend was over thousands of years, including the current up-spike in both.

Ok. I’ll take a look and run it by the climate scientists I know to get some opinions.

Edited to add: I see now that the article is from 2004, so I’m sure there are some opinions and potential updates since then.

Also, no doubt that solar activity can drive the climate as the solar irradiance is the power input. However, my understanding is that over recent history there is no correlation between TSI and the sharply rising global temperatures we are seeing.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Point me to the correlation. I have not seen nor do I understand there to be a strong connection between solar activity and global temperature rise. Upper atmosphere temperatures, which do often correlate with solar activity, are not the same nor do they have the same inputs as tropospheric temperatures.

I linked a solar study from Max Planck Institute above (post 93). I also included a chart of solar activity from that study that could easily be confused for the IPCC global temperature chart if someone doesn't look at the labels for the axis. If two graphs covering thousands of years can easily be confused then the correlation is obvious. Note: correlation does not mean causation but such close correlation over thousands of years does certainly suggest a strong indication of causation.
Is it?

They didn't seem to think so, contemporarily.
article said:
On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research.
That was nearly 20 years ago (2004 article), and we can plop the last 20 years onto those 20 years. Sun activity was quite low the last solar cycle, notably lower than in the 70s, yet the Earth has continued warming.

We know that CO2 traps energy from the Sun. And we know that when you add energy to a system, you increase its disorder.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,293
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Point me to the correlation. I have not seen nor do I understand there to be a strong connection between solar activity and global temperature rise. Upper atmosphere temperatures, which do often correlate with solar activity, are not the same nor do they have the same inputs as tropospheric temperatures.

I linked a solar study from Max Planck Institute above (post 93). I also included a chart of solar activity from that study that could easily be confused for the IPCC global temperature chart if someone doesn't look at the labels for the axis. If two graphs covering thousands of years can easily be confused then the correlation is obvious. Note: correlation does not mean causation but such close correlation over thousands of years does certainly suggest a strong indication of causation.

Correlations:
Where the IPCC chart shows global temperatures higher, the Max Planck study shows solar activity higher. Where the IPCC chart shows global temperatures lower, the Max Planck study shows solar activity lower. And this trend was over thousands of years, including the current up-spike in both.

Ok. I took a deeper look at this link and the papers that it cites and also at some more recent papers that cite those papers. I think the conclusion is best summarized by the following, from a paper entitled “Correlation between total solar irradiance and global land temperatures for the last 120 years” by Varonov and Shopov (2016):

These results show the substantially higher influence of the total solar irradiance on the global land temperatures before 1970. The decline is this influence during the last 40 years could be attributed to the increasing concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

You can dig up the paper (free online) for more details but the gist is that in the past, prior to when there was a substantially higher concentration of CO2 from man-made sources, warming was very well correlated with solar output, as would be expected due to the Sun being the source of heat for our planet. So, the idea that over thousands of years there was a good correlation makes sense, as you say.

However, TSI has not risen in the past forty years and thus is no longer correlated with the warming. This supports the conclusion that the increased greenhouse gases is trapping the sun’s energy and causing the warming.

Furthermore, looking back at one of the citations in your link, I see that in 2003 Solanki’s JGR paper, entitled “Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970” (also cited in the above paper I mention), came to this conclusion to the titular question:

This comparison [data from 1856-1970 versus data from 1970-1999] shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperatures increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric hearing caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic Ray flux.

This reflects the generally accepted result that global warming is not caused by the Sun. Unless someone comes up with a different mechanism that is not usually considered in climate models and can strongly correlate that with current warming tends while reconciling it with past climatic cycles I don’t see that conclusion changing.

I now see that this earlier paper is actually making a more strongly worded conclusion than even the more recent paper I first quoted.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
You have an interesting method of of reaching an "understanding" of nature.... Look for someone's opinion that agrees with what you want to believe that can do a lot of hand-waving to reach "absolute certainty" of reality.

I can think of five possible ways to account for the correlation... there, of course, could be others.
You seem to be arguing for 1 while I lean toward 4.

1. It is simply thousands of years of continuous coincidences.
2. Earth's climate effects solar activity.
3. There is a, as yet unknown, cause that effects both solar activity and Earth's climate.
4. Solar activity has an effect on Earth's climate.
5. Max Plank faked their solar study as a prank.
Some of these can obviously be ignored as absurd even though addressing the question, others not.

ETA:
It just hit me that you seem to think that I am arguing that solar activity is the ONLY climate driver. Hardly... there are several climate drivers, some known and quite possibly some not yet known. The problem is to try to understand the relative effect of each of the drivers at any given period of time.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Man, so Shadowy Man took the paper you linked to, went through it, went through some more papers (linked as well), provided an assessment, and your response to take it personally and responsd with a dickish post?

Also, item 5 seems to indicate you didn't bother to read your own citation.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,293
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
You have an interesting method of of reaching an "understanding" of nature.... Look for someone's opinion that agrees with what you want to believe that can do a lot of hand-waving to reach "absolute certainty" of reality.

I can think of five possible ways to account for the correlation... there, of course, could be others.
You seem to be arguing for 1 while I lean toward 4.

1. It is simply thousands of years of continuous coincidences.
2. Earth's climate effects solar activity.
3. There is a, as yet unknown, cause that effects both solar activity and Earth's climate.
4. Solar activity has an effect on Earth's climate.
5. Max Plank faked their solar study as a prank.
Some of these can obviously be ignored as absurd even though addressing the question, others not.

ETA:
It just hit me that you seem to think that I am arguing that solar activity is the ONLY climate driver. Hardly... there are several climate drivers, some known and quite possibly some not yet known. The problem is to try to understand the relative effect of each of the drivers at any given period of time.

I honestly don’t understand your response. There is clearly a correlation that has lasted for a long time. Neither I nor the papers I cited disagree with that. However that correlation is broken after 1970 and the researchers determined that the most likely reason for that is that the presence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes the dominant cause for the recent steep rise of global temperatures. They’ve even quantified that as per the quoted text. If you have a problem with the papers I cited you can read them and argue specific points, but the second paper I cited was actually a source for the information *you* linked to in the first place, so I don’t understand your issue with it.

I don’t know what you’re arguing for, now. I have said already a couple of times that solar activity is a climate driver and cited papers that attest to that, including the paper you effectively cited, too. I am just saying that climate scientists don’t believe that solar activity is driving the current spate of warming. It seemed in your first post that you were implying it might be because it has in the past and that’s why you linked to the MP news article. I’m sorry if that’s an incorrect interpretation of your original post.

And I don’t believe that I said or presented anything as “absolute certainty”.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
You have an interesting method of of reaching an "understanding" of nature.... Look for someone's opinion that agrees with what you want to believe that can do a lot of hand-waving to reach "absolute certainty" of reality.

I can think of five possible ways to account for the correlation... there, of course, could be others.
You seem to be arguing for 1 while I lean toward 4.

1. It is simply thousands of years of continuous coincidences.
2. Earth's climate effects solar activity.
3. There is a, as yet unknown, cause that effects both solar activity and Earth's climate.
4. Solar activity has an effect on Earth's climate.
5. Max Plank faked their solar study as a prank.
Some of these can obviously be ignored as absurd even though addressing the question, others not.

ETA:
It just hit me that you seem to think that I am arguing that solar activity is the ONLY climate driver. Hardly... there are several climate drivers, some known and quite possibly some not yet known. The problem is to try to understand the relative effect of each of the drivers at any given period of time.

I honestly don’t understand your response. There is clearly a correlation that has lasted for a long time. Neither I nor the papers I cited disagree with that. However that correlation is broken after 1970 and the researchers determined that the most likely reason for that is that the presence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes the dominant cause for the recent steep rise of global temperatures. They’ve even quantified that as per the quoted text. If you have a problem with the papers I cited you can read them and argue specific points, but the second paper I cited was actually a source for the information *you* linked to in the first place, so I don’t understand your issue with it.

I don’t know what you’re arguing for, now. I have said already a couple of times that solar activity is a climate driver and cited papers that attest to that, including the paper you effectively cited, too. I am just saying that climate scientists don’t believe that solar activity is driving the current spate of warming. It seemed in your first post that you were implying it might be because it has in the past and that’s why you linked to the MP news article. I’m sorry if that’s an incorrect interpretation of your original post.

And I don’t believe that I said or presented anything as “absolute certainty”.
I am saying that there are several climate drivers effecting the climate at the same time. CO2 has became more prominent but that doesn't mean that solar activity stopped being a major driver. The fact (according to Max Planck) that we are currently experiencing the greatest period of solar activity in the last 8000 years should mean that solar activity should have more effect on climate than it did previously. Yes, CO2 is likely a responsible driver for our current high global temperatures but then the exceptional level of solar activity is also a likely driver... both together is a double whammy. And then there may be even more drivers that contribute either positively or negatively... like the increased volcanism, planetary albedo, aerosols, etc.

The start of the scree was rebutting the popular idea that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,293
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
You have an interesting method of of reaching an "understanding" of nature.... Look for someone's opinion that agrees with what you want to believe that can do a lot of hand-waving to reach "absolute certainty" of reality.

I can think of five possible ways to account for the correlation... there, of course, could be others.
You seem to be arguing for 1 while I lean toward 4.

1. It is simply thousands of years of continuous coincidences.
2. Earth's climate effects solar activity.
3. There is a, as yet unknown, cause that effects both solar activity and Earth's climate.
4. Solar activity has an effect on Earth's climate.
5. Max Plank faked their solar study as a prank.
Some of these can obviously be ignored as absurd even though addressing the question, others not.

ETA:
It just hit me that you seem to think that I am arguing that solar activity is the ONLY climate driver. Hardly... there are several climate drivers, some known and quite possibly some not yet known. The problem is to try to understand the relative effect of each of the drivers at any given period of time.

I honestly don’t understand your response. There is clearly a correlation that has lasted for a long time. Neither I nor the papers I cited disagree with that. However that correlation is broken after 1970 and the researchers determined that the most likely reason for that is that the presence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes the dominant cause for the recent steep rise of global temperatures. They’ve even quantified that as per the quoted text. If you have a problem with the papers I cited you can read them and argue specific points, but the second paper I cited was actually a source for the information *you* linked to in the first place, so I don’t understand your issue with it.

I don’t know what you’re arguing for, now. I have said already a couple of times that solar activity is a climate driver and cited papers that attest to that, including the paper you effectively cited, too. I am just saying that climate scientists don’t believe that solar activity is driving the current spate of warming. It seemed in your first post that you were implying it might be because it has in the past and that’s why you linked to the MP news article. I’m sorry if that’s an incorrect interpretation of your original post.

And I don’t believe that I said or presented anything as “absolute certainty”.
I am saying that there are several climate drivers effecting the climate at the same time. CO2 has became more prominent but that doesn't mean that solar activity stopped being a major driver. The fact (according to Max Planck) that we are currently experiencing the greatest period of solar activity in the last 8000 years should mean that solar activity should have more effect on climate than it did previously. Yes, CO2 is likely a responsible driver for our current high global temperatures but then the exceptional level of solar activity is also a likely driver... both together is a double whammy. And then there may be even more drivers that contribute either positively or negatively... like the increased volcanism, planetary albedo, aerosols, etc.

The start of the scree was rebutting the popular idea that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change.

Ok, the issue is with the word “activity”. I looked up the Nature paper and see that they mean number of sunspots, which is a measure of magnetic activity. This is not the same as total solar irradiance. In order to compare the potential effect of magnetic activity on Earth’s climate, the authors attempted to reconstruct the sunspot record beyond the data obtained from direct measurement — about four centuries worth — using radiocarbon techniques. With a longer timescale comparisons to climatic records are possible.

They do indeed find that in recent years it appears there is more activity, as determined from this methodology, than historically. However, they also say this in their abstract (with more detail in the text):

Solanki et al. Nature 431 said:
Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

With that last part being referenced to the other paper i mentioned in my earlier post.

I don’t think you’ll find any climate scientist saying that greenhouse gases are the only driver of climate change. These authors don’t say that. But they will say that they believe that greenhouse gases are the main driver of the recent warming.

Perhaps there is some connection between solar activity as measured by sunspot number and climate trends but these authors don’t make that claim nor propose any mechanism for it. They don’t even try to directly correlate their results with historical warming trends. It would appear to me that this paper is primarily a demonstration of a new technique for reconstructing sunspot numbers prior to direct measurements. The potential comparison to climate impacts is at best speculative in this paper.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,893
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
(On the matter of CO2's contribution to heating: I thought the direct effect of that green-house molecule on radiative forcing was fairly well calibrated. No?)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gizmodo said:
This summer’s wheat woes are a look into how crop yields may start to sputter more regularly, even as agriculture makes technological advancements. Ortiz-Bobea coauthored a study published in Nature Climate Change earlier this year that found that climate change has already made global farming productivity 21% lower than it could have been—the equivalent of making no improvements in productivity for seven years.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,023
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
In te 19th century there was a short cooling causing crop failures in Europe and North America. In modern times ir was traced back to a volcano. Particles in the atmosphere.

Nuclear Winter became a term in the 60s-70s. At one point people thought a full scale nuclear war was survivable.

According to the UN food production is already dropping globally. A govt report in the 90s predicted the La area woud run out of water in about 40-50nyeras and the US will cease to be a net food exporter.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
A govt report in the 90s predicted the La area woud run out of water in about 40-50nyeras.
That is not a very surprising prediction. The LA area is a desert and there are something like twenty million people living there. Three times that number could live on the northern peninsula of Michigan and would have more water available than than they could possibly use. Apparently few people want to live where there is plenty water but love living in a desert where there is little rain and a lot of sun for them to enjoy.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,023
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
A govt report in the 90s predicted the La area woud run out of water in about 40-50nyeras.
That is not a very surprising prediction. The LA area is a desert and there are something like twenty million people living there. Three times that number could live on the northern peninsula of Michigan and would have more water available than than they could possibly use. Apparently few people want to live where there is plenty water but love living in a desert where there is little rain and a lot of sun for them to enjoy.

Nobody listens.

I was taking to a stae cop I met about gawkers slowing down on the highway at an accicet creating a jam.h
He said "You don't understand, individually people are smart, collectively they are like sheep".
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
(On the matter of CO2's contribution to heating: I thought the direct effect of that green-house molecule on radiative forcing was fairly well calibrated. No?)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gizmodo said:
This summer’s wheat woes are a look into how crop yields may start to sputter more regularly, even as agriculture makes technological advancements. Ortiz-Bobea coauthored a study published in Nature Climate Change earlier this year that found that climate change has already made global farming productivity 21% lower than it could have been—the equivalent of making no improvements in productivity for seven years.

Direct, yes, but there's a lot of secondary effects that are much harder to calibrate. Some add (warmer = more water vapor in the air, water is a greenhouse gas), some subtract (warmer = more water vapor in the air = more clouds reflecting sunlight back into space.)
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,023
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Chaotic systems. Causal but variables impossible to accurately quantify.

Simulations accurate only in the near term. Small errors in the initial conditions grow over time.
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,694
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A govt report in the 90s predicted the La area woud run out of water in about 40-50nyeras.
That is not a very surprising prediction. The LA area is a desert and there are something like twenty million people living there. Three times that number could live on the northern peninsula of Michigan and would have more water available than than they could possibly use. Apparently few people want to live where there is plenty water but love living in a desert where there is little rain and a lot of sun for them to enjoy.

You would think that something this obvious would register. It probably does but is ignored because it doesn't suit the climate emergency/crisis/apocalypse agenda. We have millions and millions of people living in SoCal in houses with lawns that need watered every day for eight/nine months of the year, all flushing the toilet every day, taking showers etc. We have golf courses, vine yards, almond trees and massive agriculture that can only thrive thanks to irrigation and drawing on a quite scarce resource, water. And of course, the democratically controlled state of California has not invested in infrastructure such as reservoirs to increase water capacity. No, we got a multi billion dollar "high speed" rail project that goes from one shit hole to another shit hole because "climate".

Climate change, it really is a rapture like cult.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,618
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/07/heres-what-climate-scientists-are-really-saying-about-this-catastrophic-summer/?utm_source=mj-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-07-19-2021


By all accounts, the climate crisis is already here. Deadly heat domes across the Pacific Northwest, a petroleum pipeline leak in the middle of the ocean that set the Gulf of Mexico on fire, and the devastating collapse of a Florida condominium in the past few weeks alone have proven that the world is changing in response to how we have changed it.

No one should be surprised by this. For decades, scientists have been ringing the alarm bell about anthropogenic climate change. Over 30 years ago, NASA scientist James Hansen told the U.S. Congress that the “greenhouse effect is here.” And long before then, in the 1800s, scientists like Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling the amount of CO2 that was in the atmosphere in 1895 would lead to global warming of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius in average global temperatures. “That wasn’t too far off,” said Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, speaking on his own behalf. It was just that Arrhenius’s timeframe for how quickly humans would emit those gasses was way off, Kalmus added: “It only took about 125 years for that increase in CO2 fraction that he thought would take 3000 years. He grossly underestimated the rate of emissions from burning fossil fuels that we actually did.”

Arrhenius’s original prediction represents a lot of the current problems faced by climate change models. Understanding where we are on the climate change timeline requires multiple steps—we need to know how much greenhouse gas has been emitted, how much those greenhouse gases have increased the global temperature, and then finally, we need to take one last step that even Arrhenius never took—we need to understand how those changes in global temperature will affect the climate we experience. It’s this last bit that is trickiest—we know the current proportion of carbon in our atmosphere (currently around 420 parts per million), what we don’t know is how to accurately predict all the consequences of the temperature increase caused by that extra carbon.


Denialists kind of remind of the line from "The Boxer"....."a man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest".....
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
https://www.motherjones.com/environ...mail&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-07-19-2021


By all accounts, the climate crisis is already here. Deadly heat domes across the Pacific Northwest, a petroleum pipeline leak in the middle of the ocean that set the Gulf of Mexico on fire, and the devastating collapse of a Florida condominium in the past few weeks alone have proven that the world is changing in response to how we have changed it.
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,508
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
https://www.motherjones.com/environ...mail&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-07-19-2021


By all accounts, the climate crisis is already here. Deadly heat domes across the Pacific Northwest, a petroleum pipeline leak in the middle of the ocean that set the Gulf of Mexico on fire, and the devastating collapse of a Florida condominium in the past few weeks alone have proven that the world is changing in response to how we have changed it.
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.

One shouldn't trust Mother Jones to give accurate information on this kind of topic. They have a strong left bias, which contrary to many beliefs here, doesn't mean "truth". People are getting a little out of hand these days with attributing things to "climate change". Kamala Harris said one of the reasons people are leaving Central America to come to the US is "because of climate change". Proof?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.

One shouldn't trust Mother Jones to give accurate information on this kind of topic. They have a strong left bias, which contrary to many beliefs here, doesn't mean "truth". People are getting a little out of hand these days with attributing things to "climate change". Kamala Harris said one of the reasons people are leaving Central America to come to the US is "because of climate change". Proof?

This. Climate had nothing to do with the collapse. Salt water is horribly corrosive over time. Don't keep it out, it's going to eat things.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,293
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.

One shouldn't trust Mother Jones to give accurate information on this kind of topic. They have a strong left bias, which contrary to many beliefs here, doesn't mean "truth". People are getting a little out of hand these days with attributing things to "climate change". Kamala Harris said one of the reasons people are leaving Central America to come to the US is "because of climate change". Proof?

This. Climate had nothing to do with the collapse. Salt water is horribly corrosive over time. Don't keep it out, it's going to eat things.

I thought I had read that maybe the swimming pool was slowly leaking into the foundation leading to decay of the rebar in the concrete. But maybe that was just early speculation.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,893
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
https://www.motherjones.com/environ...mail&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter-07-19-2021


By all accounts, the climate crisis is already here. Deadly heat domes across the Pacific Northwest, a petroleum pipeline leak in the middle of the ocean that set the Gulf of Mexico on fire, and the devastating collapse of a Florida condominium in the past few weeks alone have proven that the world is changing in response to how we have changed it.
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.

You're right. And what's the relevance of the pipeline leak? That paragraph should have been stricken out by a competent editor.

But the rest of the article just reports the comments of sober scientists. Nowhere in the article are the absurd charges in the opening paragraph repeated.

Certainly Mother Jones is a far more credible source than the latest lies from the Koch-Hannity Bullshit Machine.

I agree it is a shame that there is so much misinformation from "both sides." But a case should be judged by the writings of its STRONGEST proponents, not its weakest.

(This is the point I try to make in another thread. Why should crazy rantings that Queen Elizabeth was either a transvestite or the secret mother of Henry Wriothesley be allowed to detract from the research of sober literature scholars?)
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,037
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
*pause*

Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.

You're right. And what's the relevance of the pipeline leak? That paragraph should have been stricken out by a competent editor.

But the rest of the article just reports the comments of sober scientists. Nowhere in the article are the absurd charges in the opening paragraph repeated.

Certainly Mother Jones is a far more credible source than the latest lies from the Koch-Hannity Bullshit Machine.

I agree it is a shame that there is so much misinformation from "both sides." But a case should be judged by the writings of its STRONGEST proponents, not its weakest.

(This is the point I try to make in another thread. Why should crazy rantings that Queen Elizabeth was either a transvestite or the secret mother of Henry Wriothesley be allowed to detract from the research of sober literature scholars?)

I could post this link in multiple threads. Helps me understand such behavior and identify why and how it occurs.

Neural circuits responsible for conscious self-control are highly vulnerable to even mild stress. When they shut down, primal impulses go unchecked and mental paralysis sets in
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This. Climate had nothing to do with the collapse. Salt water is horribly corrosive over time. Don't keep it out, it's going to eat things.

I thought I had read that maybe the swimming pool was slowly leaking into the foundation leading to decay of the rebar in the concrete. But maybe that was just early speculation.

It's on the beach. Even water that starts out fresh will become salt.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,293
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
This. Climate had nothing to do with the collapse. Salt water is horribly corrosive over time. Don't keep it out, it's going to eat things.

I thought I had read that maybe the swimming pool was slowly leaking into the foundation leading to decay of the rebar in the concrete. But maybe that was just early speculation.

It's on the beach. Even water that starts out fresh will become salt.

I don’t think it has to be salty water to corrode the rebar. Just standing.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This. Climate had nothing to do with the collapse. Salt water is horribly corrosive over time. Don't keep it out, it's going to eat things.

I thought I had read that maybe the swimming pool was slowly leaking into the foundation leading to decay of the rebar in the concrete. But maybe that was just early speculation.

It's on the beach. Even water that starts out fresh will become salt.
Water isn't fresh from a pool, it has chlorine... which isn't good for rebar either.
Ocean level rise didn't cause that building to collapse. It was likely the impact of insufficient dewatering of salt water causing corrosion over a period of four decades. People need to be cautious when connecting dots that poorly.


You're right. And what's the relevance of the pipeline leak? That paragraph should have been stricken out by a competent editor.

But the rest of the article just reports the comments of sober scientists. Nowhere in the article are the absurd charges in the opening paragraph repeated.

Certainly Mother Jones is a far more credible source than the latest lies from the Koch-Hannity Bullshit Machine.

I agree it is a shame that there is so much misinformation from "both sides." But a case should be judged by the writings of its STRONGEST proponents, not its weakest.

(This is the point I try to make in another thread. Why should crazy rantings that Queen Elizabeth was either a transvestite or the secret mother of Henry Wriothesley be allowed to detract from the research of sober literature scholars?)


I could post this link in multiple threads. Helps me understand such behavior and identify why and how it occurs.

Neural circuits responsible for conscious self-control are highly vulnerable to even mild stress. When they shut down, primal impulses go unchecked and mental paralysis sets in
Another impact of climate change. :D
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,618
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
JFC! Sometimes you people pick out a small controversial statement in an article instead of looking at the big picture. Sure, it's controversial whether or not, the condo collapse was at all influenced by climate change, although "Mother Jones" isn't the only publication that has suggested there was a correlation or might have been a correlation. Do your own search. It's mentioned as a possible influence in several more mainstream journals or sources of news. Still, it's not the primary part of that article. But.....

So, here's another example in a better source, unless you're a Trump supporting cultist, that says it's "possible" that the collapse was partially influenced by climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/17/us/miami-building-collapse-condo-surfside.html


It is too soon to say whether climate change contributed to the collapse of the building in Surfside. But the effects of global warming, which include extreme heat and more moisture in the air, cause structures to deteriorate more quickly, according to Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University who specializes in the consequences of climate change for the built environment.

“Climate change is actually accelerating the degradation of buildings,” Dr. Keenan said.

So, it is something to consider, but forget about that one example, climate change is obvious to anyone who isn't a member of the Trump cult or to those who enjoy living in denial. The floods in Germany, China and even New York City, the fires and extreme temps out west and in Canada, the fact that Siberia had extremely high temps never seen before, the melting ice in the Arctic etc. Don't focus on one small part of an article that may not currently have enough evidence to support it, look at the big picture. Climate change is here!
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,694
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Jeezus, the Florida building collapse is the 9/11 truthers conspiracy all over again.

A rapture like cult.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Meanwhile it’s a catastrophic 77f in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles is on the ocean, that will moderate the temperature. Over here in Las Vegas we have 104 despite a fair amount of cloud cover. Death Valley had 116.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,747
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Meanwhile it’s a catastrophic 77f in Los Angeles.

And that’s probably the high temperature. Think how cold it will get at night!

Average annual temperature in California, 1971-1980 average as baseline. Each annual bar is colour coded with each tone representing 2.5 standard deviations from the '71-'80 mean.

IMG_6128.PNG

Source: https://showyourstripes.info/, as compiled by Prof. Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading using data from NOAA.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,023
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Western Washington is doing ok for water supplies, in the news today eastern Washington is running dry.

It is not tomorrow it is today. The thought to be unsinkable Titanic comes to mind.
 

OLDMAN

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
906
Location
NB
Basic Beliefs
NONE
I used to build bridges, some of the rebar is corroded from the start. If you think about the pressure points on structures, it doesn't take much of a shift to have an area fail...and then the dominos fall.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Meanwhile, press starts making news with "heat dome".

It is summer folks, there are heat waves, it happens. What happened in the Pacific Northwest was extremely rare and worth reporting. Bringing up the term "heat dome" every time there is a heat wave, however, starts diminishing the meaning and diluting the importance of reading the news.
 

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,694
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Reality bites;

Britons are set to be allowed up to five more years before a ban on sales of all new gas boilers comes into force, in a major row-back for Boris Johnson amid a backlash over the soaring cost of 'net zero' ahead of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow later this year. The Prime Minister is looking at delaying the ban by five years to 2040, in a move which would give millions of UK households more time for new hydrogen boilers and heat-pumps to fall in price, and for businesses to pump more money into shifting people over gradually. The public is set to be incentivised to buy an eco-friendly heat-pump next time their boiler breaks down - but the delay to introducing the ban means working boilers could have to be taken out before 2050, or the UK could fail to hit its 'net zero' carbon emission targets. It comes amid a mounting backlash over the spiralling cost of Mr Johnson's so-called green revolution, with Government insiders fearful that the proposals could add another £400billion on top of the enormous sums accrued during the Covid pandemic. Hydrogen boilers are one of the possible replacements for gas boilers, with others including ground source or air source heat pumps, but these cost upwards of £14,000 or £11,000 respectively.

DailyMail
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,712
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Reality bites;

Britons are set to be allowed up to five more years before a ban on sales of all new gas boilers comes into force, in a major row-back for Boris Johnson amid a backlash over the soaring cost of 'net zero' ahead of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow later this year. The Prime Minister is looking at delaying the ban by five years to 2040, in a move which would give millions of UK households more time for new hydrogen boilers and heat-pumps to fall in price, and for businesses to pump more money into shifting people over gradually. The public is set to be incentivised to buy an eco-friendly heat-pump next time their boiler breaks down - but the delay to introducing the ban means working boilers could have to be taken out before 2050, or the UK could fail to hit its 'net zero' carbon emission targets. It comes amid a mounting backlash over the spiralling cost of Mr Johnson's so-called green revolution, with Government insiders fearful that the proposals could add another £400billion on top of the enormous sums accrued during the Covid pandemic. Hydrogen boilers are one of the possible replacements for gas boilers, with others including ground source or air source heat pumps, but these cost upwards of £14,000 or £11,000 respectively.

DailyMail

Why do you keep using the Daily Fail as a source?

It is a very stupid idea, though--hydrogen is tricky to handle and isn't a power source in the first place.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,037
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Reality bites;

Britons are set to be allowed up to five more years before a ban on sales of all new gas boilers comes into force, in a major row-back for Boris Johnson amid a backlash over the soaring cost of 'net zero' ahead of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow later this year. The Prime Minister is looking at delaying the ban by five years to 2040, in a move which would give millions of UK households more time for new hydrogen boilers and heat-pumps to fall in price, and for businesses to pump more money into shifting people over gradually. The public is set to be incentivised to buy an eco-friendly heat-pump next time their boiler breaks down - but the delay to introducing the ban means working boilers could have to be taken out before 2050, or the UK could fail to hit its 'net zero' carbon emission targets. It comes amid a mounting backlash over the spiralling cost of Mr Johnson's so-called green revolution, with Government insiders fearful that the proposals could add another £400billion on top of the enormous sums accrued during the Covid pandemic. Hydrogen boilers are one of the possible replacements for gas boilers, with others including ground source or air source heat pumps, but these cost upwards of £14,000 or £11,000 respectively.

DailyMail

Why do you keep using the Daily Fail as a source?

It is a very stupid idea, though--hydrogen is tricky to handle and isn't a power source in the first place.
Zeppelins were designed to contain helium, not hydrogen. But the U.S. was the only source of helium in the world and we wouldn't sell. The rest is history.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,023
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
There are companies that make hydrogen fuel cells for cars, trucks, and busses. The fundamental issue with fuel cells is it takes electricity to create hydrogen. Its those pesky troublesome Laws Of Thermodynamics.

https://www.ballard.com/
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,023
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
It isn't just humans who died in the Northwest heat wave.
N.Y. Times said:
Dead mussels and clams coated rocks in the Pacific Northwest, their shells gaping open as if they’d been boiled. Sea stars were baked to death. Sockeye salmon swam sluggishly in an overheated Washington river, prompting wildlife officials to truck them to cooler areas.

The combination of extraordinary heat and drought that hit the Western United States and Canada over the past two weeks has killed hundreds of millions of marine animals and continues to threaten untold species in freshwater, according to a preliminary estimate and interviews with scientists.

“It just feels like one of those postapocalyptic movies,” said Christopher Harley, a marine biologist at the University of British Columbia who studies the effects of climate change on coastal marine ecosystems.

To calculate the death toll, Dr. Harley first looked at how many blue mussels live on a particular shoreline, how much of the area is good habitat for mussels and what fraction of the mussels he observed died. He estimated losses for the mussels alone in the hundreds of millions. Factoring in the other creatures that live in the mussel beds and on the shore — barnacles, hermit crabs and other crustaceans, various worms, tiny sea cucumbers — puts the deaths at easily over a billion, he said.
...
When he walked to the beach last week on one of the hottest days, the smell of decay struck him immediately. The scientist in him was excited, he admitted, to see the real-life effect of something he’d been studying for so long.

But his mood quickly changed.

“The more I walked and the more I saw, the more sobering it all became,” Dr. Harley said. “It just went on and on and on.”

The dead sea stars, usually the most eye-catching creatures in tidal pools, hit him particularly hard. But the obvious mass victims were blue mussels, an ecologically important species that feeds sea stars and sea ducks and creates habitat for other animals.
...
“We are already at critical temperatures three weeks before the most serious heating occurs,” said Don Chapman, a retired fisheries biologist who specialized in salmon and steelhead trout, talking about conditions along the Snake River in Washington, where four dams are the subject of longstanding controversy. “I think we’re headed for disaster.”

The plight of the salmon illustrates a broader danger facing all kinds of species as climate change worsens. Many animals were already struggling to survive because of human activity degrading their habitats. Throw in extreme heat and drought, and their odds of survival diminish.
The article doesn't clarify whether Dr. Harley is a scientist with a PhD, or a "scientist" with a "PhD."

It is true.

From local reporting shallow water marine life has been literally cooking to death.

High temperatures reduce saturated O2 in shallow waters and spawning salmon suffocate.

Salmon is a sensitive issue in the PNW. Part of it is ties to Native American traditions and treaties that guaranteed fishing rights, some depend on it.

Then there is the fishing industry. Salmon is a high quality food. Salmo

It was reported in the 90s the Pacific Coast marine life is migrating north slowly as water gets warmer.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,438
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
It is a very stupid idea, though--hydrogen is tricky to handle and isn't a power source in the first place.
Zeppelins were designed to contain helium, not hydrogen. But the U.S. was the only source of helium in the world and we wouldn't sell. The rest is history.
The first Zeppelin flew in 1900. The fact that there's even enough helium in the world to float an airship wasn't discovered until 1903. Total world production was less than a cubic meter before WW1. The Germans spent the war bombing allied cities from Zeppelins; meanwhile the U.S. was using our own hydrogen blimps to hunt U-boats and thinking about the advantages of switching to helium if we could figure out how to extract enough; we didn't manage to actually build a helium blimp until after the war was over. Of course Zeppelins were designed to contain hydrogen.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,037
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
It is a very stupid idea, though--hydrogen is tricky to handle and isn't a power source in the first place.
Zeppelins were designed to contain helium, not hydrogen. But the U.S. was the only source of helium in the world and we wouldn't sell. The rest is history.
The first Zeppelin flew in 1900. The fact that there's even enough helium in the world to float an airship wasn't discovered until 1903. Total world production was less than a cubic meter before WW1. The Germans spent the war bombing allied cities from Zeppelins; meanwhile the U.S. was using our own hydrogen blimps to hunt U-boats and thinking about the advantages of switching to helium if we could figure out how to extract enough; we didn't manage to actually build a helium blimp until after the war was over. Of course Zeppelins were designed to contain hydrogen.

5 things to know about the Hindenberg

The airship was designed to be filled with helium gas but because of U.S. export restriction on helium, it was filled with hydrogen.

There's a recent NOVA episode on the disaster where new evidence is presented. It's where I first heard about the helium/hydrogen situation.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,023
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
A worse case scenario.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html

Whales swim among icebergs near Greenland. Scientists say a critical ocean circulation in the North Atlantic is showing signs of instability, which could have major implications for Earth's climate.
(CNN)A crucial system of currents in the Atlantic Ocean that helps control temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and has implications for the entire planet's weather systems is showing signs of instability due to human-made climate change, scientists say.

Its collapse would have dire consequences for our weather and life on Earth.
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) -- which the Gulf Stream is a major part of -- helps maintain the energy balance in the Atlantic Ocean. It is often described as a "conveyor belt" that takes warm surface water from the tropics and distributes it to the north Atlantic. The colder, saltier water then sinks and flows south.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Certainly there is concern for some larger scale processes on the globe that could reach thresholds of change. The ocean is a very dangerous thing to screw with.

That said, the study's authors do indicate there is no known connection with climate change and the instability they are seeing.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,023
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
It was a concern in the 90s. Cold water at the poles sink creating currents.

Disrupt Atlantic currents and sea life is disrupted , European-North American weather changes.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Highest European temperature recorded possibly reached and by nearly a degree from previous record.
article said:
Authorities in Italy say the island of Sicily may have set an all-time heat record for Europe, hitting a temperature of 48.8 degrees Celsius (119.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

The city of Siracusa hit the blistering record on Wednesday afternoon, as an anticyclone -- which Italian media reports are referring to as "Lucifer" -- swept in and continues to moves north up the country. A persistent heat wave around the Mediterranean in Europe and North Africa has contributed to some of the worst fires seen there in years.

The hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe was 48.0°C (118°F) in Athens, Greece in 1977, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The record in Italy was confirmed by Sicilian authorities, but needs to be officially verified by the WMO.
So if confirmed, highest temps recorded for Global (North America) and Europe this year.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,893
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
You Northerners complain about a heat wave that lasts a week or two. Be thankful you weren't here in North Central Thailand where unrelenting heat lasted for eleven weeks in 2016. Scattered during this wave were just a few balmy days when the High was only 39°C or so.
Highest European temperature recorded possibly reached and by nearly a degree from previous record.
article said:
Authorities in Italy say the island of Sicily may have set an all-time heat record for Europe, hitting a temperature of 48.8 degrees Celsius (119.8 degrees Fahrenheit)....
So if confirmed, highest temps recorded for Global (North America) and Europe this year.

Yes, and Tunisia just set all-time records.

[sarcasm on] But here in the Land of Smiles, our mellow summer has refuted global warming. Consider the list of days that exceeded 40°C at weather station 484000, the official station closest to my home which has kept records for over seven decades. Only 21 days have been recorded at that station with temperatures above 43°C, and 15 of those 20 were recorded in 2016. Only two 43+°C days (in April 2020) have occurred since 2016. So the Earth's temperatures — at least from my selfish point of view :) — peaked in 2016 and have since been declining!

Here's a chart that makes the Cooling trend even more clear-cut. It shows the ten years with most 40+°C days.
52 2016
42 1980
38 2015
37 2020
34 1963
33 2010
30 1992
27 2019
25 1998
25 1979
...
3 2021​
For contrast, I show the present year where 40°C was exceeded only thrice. (Yes, I know 2021 isn't over yet, but out of 773 days of 40+°C heat recorded at that weather station, all but 20 were in the March-April-May hot season. Eleven of those 20 exceptions were in June-July 2015.)
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,618
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/08/13/july-2021-hottest-record-month/


If you thought this July was just toasty, you probably didn’t realize you were living through the hottest month in modern history. On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared July 2021 the world’s hottest month in 142 years of records.
“In this case, first place is the worst place to be,” NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad said in a statement. “This new record adds to the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the globe.”


Extreme heat plagued the Northern Hemisphere in particular during July. NOAA determined the land-surface temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was 2.77 degrees above average, the largest departure ever observed for the month.
In July, at least five heat domes scorched various regions of the Northern Hemisphere at once. Record highs were set in Turkey, which has recently been hit with devastating fires. Northern Japan broke records, while Olympic athletes sweltered under exceptional warmth. Northern Ireland broke all-time heat records twice in five days.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
You Northerners complain about a heat wave that lasts a week or two. Be thankful you weren't here in North Central Thailand where unrelenting heat lasted for eleven weeks in 2016. Scattered during this wave were just a few balmy days when the High was only 39°C or so.
I live in a place that doesn't have that temp because I don't want to live in that type of heat. This summer has been above average, but not as bad as last year (in NE Ohio).
 
Top Bottom