131 Degrees—Death Valley Projected To Set Earth's Modern Temperature Record
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Brian BushardForbes StaffI cover breaking news for ForbesFollowingJul 13, 2023,03:20pm EDT|Press play to listen to this article! Got it!Updated Jul 13, 2023, 03:21pm EDT
Topline
Death Valley National Park is projected to set a world record for the hottest temperature ever reliably recorded on this week, with forecasts in aptly-named Furnace Creek expected to reach 131 degrees, as a series of heat waves grip the South and Southwest, bringing dangerously hot conditions to over 100 million Americans.
Death Valley is projected to reach the 130s this week, and forecasters warn the excessive heat could ... [+] be deadly.
Key Facts
Forecasters with the National Weather Service believe Death Valley's Furnace Creek will reach 131 degrees on Sunday, with a low temperature that night of 101 degrees.
The potential record comes amid a cross-country heat wave stretching from Florida to California, breaking nearly 900 daily temperature records in municipalities across the country since the start of June—Forbes has been tracking daily high temperature records this summer.
More than 113.2 million Americans were placed under excessive heat warnings and advisories on Thursday, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service—nearly 110 million people in the U.S. had been under heat advisories on Wednesday.
The NWS warns residents in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas—where excessive heat warnings are in place—should avoid strenuous activities outside, turn on air conditioning, hydrate and to not leave kids or pets in unattended vehicles, warning "dangerous" heat can lead to heat stroke or death.
The heat wave comes one week after a 65-year-old man was found dead in a parked vehicle at the national park in what appeared to be a case of heat stroke, the park announced, and after a father and his stepson were found dead in 119-degree heat while hiking at Big Bend National Park in Texas.
Surprising Fact
Death Valley—which sits nearly 300 feet below sea level in the middle of California's Mojave Desert— is known as the hottest place on Earth and in 1913 set an all-time heat record of a blistering 134 degrees. Scientists, however, have come to doubt the accuracy of that temperature reading, one of multiple records in the early 1900s that has come under intense scrutiny. In 2013, the World Meteorological Organization decertified what had been the world's all-time hottest temperature, a 90-year-old measurement of 136.4 degrees in Al Azizia, Libya, after an evaluation found the recording faulty. Christopher Burt, who worked on the WMO decertification team, called the 1913 Death Valley "100% bogus" and likely came from an inexperienced temperature observer.
Key Background
Scientists believe Death Valley set the world's all-time heat record once again in 2020, before outdoing itself the following year, though temperature measurements in both cases fell just shy of the 1913 record. The first of two recent world records came in August 2020 at Furnace Creek, when the high temperature reached 129.9 degrees. The second was in July 2021, when the temperature inched up to an even 130 degrees, believed to be the hottest reliable measurement of all time.
What To Watch For
More temperature records. In Las Vegas, forecasters with the NWS predict the temperature on Saturday will reach a high of 114—tying a daily record—before climbing to 116 on Sunday and Monday, which would be new daily records.
Further Reading
Record-Breaking High Temperatures: Here's Where The U.S. Has Hit New Highs For 2023, Including Miami, Tucson And Tampa (Forbes)
Nearly 110 Million Americans Under Extreme Heat Advisories—Here's Where Temperature Records Could Fall (Forbes)
Tornadoes, Floods And Scorching Heat — Here's All The Extreme Weather That Occurred Just In The Past Week (Forbes)
Tags
Who is online
406 visitors
One of the great scenes about it being hot...
One of Williams' best movies.
he improved a lot of that movie.
... improv'd?
How anybody can still deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change is simply due to fossil fuel industry/corporate funded disinformation campaigns.
It's no surprise that prominent science deniers in congress are all from the far right.
"The reality of" (I struck out the A part of AGW for a reason) "global warming/climate change is simply due to" the oncoming Ice Age.
Prior to every Ice Age there was a sea level rise, much higher than what we are at now, Greenland, on land glaciers, and the Antarctic are the only places in which the water required to raise the sea levels that high can come from, so for that to happen it will need to get warmer. It takes heat to raise enough moisture into the atmosphere to build ice sheets to the depth of a mile, cold just can't do that. There was a commentor that tried to argue with me about this and supplied the CO2 levels chart from NASA going back 800,000 years and interesting was that the highest levels of CO2 were just prior to Ice Ages, which is where we are now, he was only interested in the last 200 year spike, but the 800,000 years before told me that CO2 has nothing to do with causing a warming, but is a symptom of warming.
The chart has been supplied below at #5.3, note that the rises correspond to Ice Ages approximately every 100,000 years and the last one started about 100,000 years ago meaning we are due for one soon (soon as in the next 10,000 years give or take) and we have been experiencing a CO2 rise, which has almost peaked out like the rest of them, even before we had any influence.
That is all well and good, but that doesn't factor in human activity.
No matter what we do we cannot stop the next ice age from occurring, it is the natural water cycle of our planet. If you looked at that chart, CO2 levels rise and fall with the sea level and both rise and fall with the warming and cooling, so is increasing CO2 driving the warming or, more than likely, it's the warming driving the CO2 levels. I still haven't seen any proof that carbon dioxide is any more a "greenhouse gas" than oxygen or nitrogen.
Higher sea levels and warming bring on the ice ages and lowering sea levels and thus cooling ends the ice ages, CO2 has nothing to do with this and is just a symptom.
I spent several summer seasons at McMurdo Station, Antarctica in the late 80's early 90's when I was in the Navy. One night I was sitting in the club drinking beer and a couple of NSF grantee scientists were having a heated dispute on climate change. One was climatologist and the other a vulcanologist, each with their own views. The more they drank the more heated the argument till they almost came to a fistfight. Finally, the bartender who was a 6' 4" 270 lb Navy Seabee Construction Mechanic had had enough. He proceeded to grab each scientist by the scruff of the neck and tossed them out the door of the club, telling them "You're both right! Go to bed, sleep it off and come back tomorrow if you're up to it!" The two gentlemen looked at each other and looked at each other, smiled and said, "I'm cool with that are you?" The other said he was fine with and they helped each other up dusted each other off and staggered back towards the barracks. Those gents were actually good friends. True story by the way.
there's big money in being a moronic contrarian in congress...
even basic rwnj moron pays really well...
no shortage of those these days...
Good thing conservatives reassure us there is no global warming or else it might have hit 150 degrees.
Wasn't that long ago that when some on the right claimed that the big ice storm in Texas a couple of years ago was proof the climate change/global warming did not exist, and most liberals all screeched "it's called the weather"
Same thing here. Leftists claim this fairly short period of heat is proof of warming...but to use liberal logic.....it is nothing more than just the weather.
Pay no attention to the fact that hurricanes have decreased too. The world is ending because temperatures have moved an amount that's within the margin of error!
Do you understand that the weather is affected by climate change but that one cannot look at individual readings of weather (i.e. current temperature, the fact that it is raining, etc.) as an indicator of climate change?
Climate change influences weather and temperature. But it can only be measured as a trend over long durations (in terms of years). And the readings will fluctuate during this time. Much like the future value of a company can only be perceived as a trend of its stock prices over a long period of time (as in much longer than a day). A company with poor fundamentals could still have a rising stock price if one picks a short enough duration, but ultimately it will falter.
I do not know where you get this "leftists claim" nonsense. But regardless, go with the science to understand climate change and its relationship with the weather rather than rely upon political sources.
So you agree that leftists saying the ice storm was nothing more than weather is bullshit.
Finally something correct.
You mean this?:
An ice storm, in and of itself, is not proof of anything (other than the immediate conditions that caused the storm itself).
Climate change does affect weather patterns, but it affects general trends. Further it will help cause both unusual precipitation and unusual drought as well as unusual heat and unusual cold. It depends upon the regions and the many factors of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. So trying to distill this complex subject into simple binaries is silly.
But in very simple terms, the presence of an unusually cold event does not, in any way, prove global warming does not exist. Anyone who thinks that way needs to get much smarter about climate change.
You take simple things waaaayyyyyy too far.
All that was originally said that after the ice storm, many leftists, including on here, said that the storm was not an idea that climate change was not what conservatives are saying it was, and that it was simply weather.
That's it...nothing more....so do us all a favor and stop trying to make arguments over something not posted.
That is part of my point, climate change (and its impact on weather) is not simple.
I quoted your comment and directly answered your question based on the findings of science. You can look it up and see that what I stated is correct.
I even ended with a very easy to understand summary:
Looks like you cannot reply intelligently to my comment so you (of course) resort to your usual bullshit.
Never mind. Everything has to be so complicated to you.
It's really not.
Climate change is complicated.
You need to get a better understanding of the subject matter. That would be a much better use of your time than making trollish comments.
[Deleted]
Nature and climate change is neither leftist nor conservative. In the end, it is just nature.
Yes, it is what it is and it is counterproductive to deny it.
Christopher Burt, who worked on the WMO decertification team, called the 1913 Death Valley "100% bogus" and likely came from an inexperienced temperature observer.
It would have been nice to know the specifics of why Chris Burt believes the old record was bogus, but this is the era we live in. Obviously this article is alluding to "climate change." I guess we are all aware of it. The question is what can we do?
Climate change is world wide, thus it needs a world wide response. America can't do it all especially when it is not yet set up for electric cars, yet is enacting policies that increase the price of gasoline and mandate deadlines for moving the nation to electric cars. It is idiotic. Such policies should be put in place after the US has an infrastructure that can support electric cars and such cars are actually affordable.
What we should be doing is getting the rest of the world on board. Here is where we are:
About 16 percent of the U.S. coal fleet has retired in the past five years, but don't expect major new coal-fired plants to fill that void.
On the other hand:
China is surging ahead with coal, a new report shows, rapidly approving and building new power plants despite its own promises to cut back on carbon as the world plunges ever deeper into the climate crisis.
Last year, the country approved the highest number of new coal-fired power plants since 2015, according to the report, released Monday by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
“China continues to be the glaring exception to the ongoing global decline in coal plant development,” said Flora Champenois, a research analyst at GEM.
“The speed at which projects progressed through permitting to construction in 2022 was extraordinary, with many projects sprouting up, gaining permits, obtaining financing and breaking ground apparently in a matter of months,” she added.
China’s emissions are more than double those of the United States , and though the country’s leaders have previously vowed to cut back on carbon, its reliance on coal poses a significant challenge.
Throughout 2022, China granted permits for 106 gigawatts of capacity across 82 sites, quadruple the capacity approved in 2021 and equal to starting two large coal power plants each week, said the report.
So all you climate activists out there: Let us know when you get China on board, then we'll listen to you.
I doubt that.
That was easy.
Yes. So each nation needs to do its part.
And this is exactly the wrong attitude. If everyone waits for everyone else, nothing gets done.
Just amazing that social conservatives will accept as truth whatever their political talking heads claim and will reject the worldwide scientists who spend their careers studying climate change.
And for consolidated analysis circa 2023:
An excerpt to give you a feel:
And India …..
Again, two nations out of the rest of the world. And India is willing to play ball with modifications:
.
Meanwhile Kyoto protocol member countries all over the world have been firing up new and old coal plants to meet their citizens power demands …..
I’ll repeat my stand on this topic ….. again.
I’m pro carbon reduction with two major caveats:
Reductions are made within realistic time frames, with realistic standards, that don’t overly stress the economics of the people being served. Example, don’t force electric cars on people who can’t afford them or if infrastructure required to support the cars is not readily available.
Second, the USA is not economically disadvantaged in relation to other countries who are not spending the same level of monies reducing carbon emissions. Example, cheap dirty coal power plants are being reintroduced all over the world while we shut ours down. Cheaper energy for our competitors.
That dog don’t hunt over the long run. Not for the US.
Like the original Fords? No paved roads, no gas stations?
that kind of idiocy?
[deleted]
So the rest of the free world doesn't matter? What kind of world do you think we'll leave our children?
Ask Joe Biden that question. Turning the US green, all by itself will do nothing to stop climate change. The US has led the way, but the developing countries who want to replace the US are not buying it. If China and India can't be convinced to change their ways it will all be for nothing.
What kind of world do you think we'll leave our children?
That is always on my mind, never more so than after the past 3 years.
We do our part and lead by example.
That type of idealism has it’s limits. Especially as Americans disposable income is being hacked away at by inflation and higher interest rates.
That is not idealism, it is responsible adult action.
I did not suggest that the USA take ridiculous actions. I stated that we do our part and lead by example. That, if you have read anything I have written on this subject, would be incremental, sensible, effective moves from fossil fuels, conservation, etc.
I am not suggesting that the USA attempt to solve a worldwide problem with extraordinary measures.
Yes it is. For many pushing this idea it is. Including many in our government. That said, I have no desire to get into another “definition” debate with you since we likely won’t agree.
I didn’t say you did.
Again, I didn’t say you did. My comment was very clear and it appears we agree on the limits part so not really sure what your issue is.
No it is not.
My point is very easy to understand. Here is my entire comment:
"We do our part" ≡ The USA takes practical measures to reduce our contribution to AGW at a level where, if many nations followed suit, we would mitigate the ill-effects of AGW.
"lead by example" ≡ We are creating technology, executing strategies, etc. and showing the rest of the planet how to do likewise.
There is nothing idealistic about taking practical steps to combat AGW and us doing so is ipso facto leading by example.
What alternative do you recommend? Do nothing?
China is going to be the world leader in renewable energy within the decade.
China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds
Two things can be true at the same time.
China accounted for about half of global coal consumption in 2021, and was the world’s largest foreign financier of fossil fuel infrastructure, according to the Council for Foreign Relations.
And they are one of the nations most aggressively enhancing renewable energy generation.
Again, two things can be true at the same time.
They will be responsible for 30% of the world’s CO2 emissions this year.
“China’s 2006 carbon dioxide emissions surpassed those of the United States by 8%” said the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Two things can be true.
Amazing how some people cannot seem to grasp that China can be making world-leader advances in renewable energy technology and usage while also being the biggest polluter on the planet.
Shocking ! /s
If we are supposed to be getting hotter why is 2016 the hottest year? It’s been getting cooler since.
That's why they ditched "global warming" for "climate change."
For 2 years after which global temps rose for 2 years followed by a one year drop. Early temperature measurements indicate 2023 will battle 2016 for top spot. Cherry picking one year is partisan b.s.
He said as he cherrypicked a short period in time. What happened to the devastating hurricanes we were going to get every year?
[deleted]
The link has a number of graphs spanning a wide range of years, my response was to your year of choice.
Was 2016 the hottest year on record and has every year been cooler since that year? It is a simple question.
Yes, but so what? Since the 1970s the record has been broken many times followed by several 'cooler' years followed by several 'warming' years to the next record.
Yeah, it is a worldwide conspiracy.
Why was that addressed to me?
I’m still waiting for the Ice Age our climatologist of the day we’re predicting back then ….
No, to George. (keyboard gremlins)
The one predicted to show up in 10,000 to 50,000 years? You'll be dust by then ... say hi to Godot for me.
Nope, they were in crisis mode back then just like today. Take a couple zero’s off your numbers and you’re in their ballpark.
Admittedly not AOC dumbfuckery but pretty bad for 50+ years ago.
Of course they need to make excuses why it's not getting warmer, their funding depends on it.
What a tiresome argument, prove it.
[deleted]
I don't need to, it's not a shithole country by any measurable standard. Nor is your country.
So now Canada is a "shithole country" ? They are expanding their parameters.
Wait till they find out that our buses in Montreal have all gone green and rides are soon to be ... gasp ... free.
No such thing. Somebody (you) is paying for it through higher taxes.
Here's a hint, my comment was an additional swipe at a previous poster.
[Deleted]
Trying to understand climate change by looking at annual temperatures is like trying to predict the market cap for Microsoft in 2023 by observing MSFT stock fluctuations during day trading in 1986.
Temperature for a year is a very coarse indicator, but temperature over time (decades) is a decent indicator of a trend. Climate change is an extremely complex science and to have any chance of understanding it one must understand the factors that are contributing to global warming and how those manifest into changes in our climate.
The many factors of our climate will vary over time, but the trend is that we are compounding our greenhouse effect, raising average temperature of the planet (due to reflected heat), and this is resulting in various effects such as a rising sea level, higher salinity of oceans, unusual weather patterns, etc.
You are confusing weather with climate.
.....seriously?
This week the planet broke its own hottest day recorded record 4 days in a row. And it has verifiably NOT been getting cooler for the last 7 years.
The Last 8 Years Were the Hottest on Record
.
China's solar capacity is now 228 gigawatts (GW), more than the rest of the world combined, according to Global Energy Monitor. And wind capacity, at a whopping 310GW, also leads the world.Jul 7, 2023
China is already the world's largest market for both electric vehicles and cars in general. The car market is expected to grow between 4 per cent and 5 per cent to 23 million vehicles this year. Last year, China accounted for almost 60 per cent of global EV sales.May 11, 2023
Yeah, but it is still the planets worst polluter.
Top 10 Highest CO2 Emission Countries In 2022 (topteny.com)
And that is a problem for all of us. They should do something about that, right?
Yeah, they should. So what should they do?
Move towards renewables (and to less harmful energy sources even if not renewable), reduce / capture (and sink) emissions via filters and conservation, reduce population growth, etc.
There is no shortage of actions we can take to make progress.
And the US is number two in the highest CO2 emissions...The population of China is 1.4 billion and the US is 350 million. China is four times larger and produces twice the CO2 that the US does.
True but unlike China and India our CO2 emissions have been going down for years.
And China is double ours.............
And accelerating as is India.
Fixing that is clearing the biggest component of the solution.
As I pointed out in comment 8.1.4 and to be a bit more accurate there population is 4 times ours.
Yes, ours have but so have China's been on the decline, certainly not as much as ours but they are going down.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-see-longest-sustained-drop-in-a-decade/#:~:text=China's%20carbon%20dioxide%20(CO2)%20emissions,a%20row%20of%20falling%20emissions.
You'd think all the hand waving (by both sides) would have a noticeable effect. Yet the hand wavers ignore the simple fact that more people are at risk because there are a helluva lot more people.
The global population in 1800 was about 1 billion people (according to best estimates). Todays global population stands at 8 billion. What that means is that the carbon footprint of people today must be 87 pct smaller than the carbon footprint of 1800. The human population farts 8 times more greenhouse gas today than 200 years ago. Today's population is emitting more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, too. And further increases in the size of the global population will shrink the allowable carbon footprint even more. There isn't a techno-gizmo solution that will decrease carbon footprints that much.
Another aspect ignored by hand wavers is that we have been deploying alternative energy, increasing use of electric vehicles, and improving energy efficiency. Yet we only hear about the weather and fearmongering about a dystopian future. Apparently what has been done hasn't accomplished anything. We're no better off today than before we started the transition. Politicians point to the amount of money that has been spent and claim that spending is victory. But we're still setting weather records with no indication that spending huge amounts of money is bending the curve. The more politicians spend, the worse the predictions become. The results suggest that political spending is contributing to climate change because things ain't getting any better.
Yes, the more human beings (and animals) the more agents available to exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
Reducing population growth is indeed an important factor.
The changing climate will reduce the population according to the warnings and fearmongering. So, climate change is a problem that will solve itself. Humans just want a different solution which is understandable.
If we don't control migration then the problem of overpopulation will linger much longer. Migration only moves overpopulation around the globe and will cause sudden collapse of populations within regions. So, areas less affected by changing climate may collapse sooner because of migration. That natural trend will reduce the human population even more. Those who adapt to harsher conditions may actually have a better chance of long term (generational) survival than those who migrate.
Nerm, climate change is a problem for life forms, not for the planet.
Of course the planet will be okay. The planet has undergone all sorts of changes in its history. It is fine, but the life forms have been dramatically affected.
Some of us care about life forms. Ergo the focus on climate change as it applies to life forms.
Where did I indicate otherwise?
We're told humans are causing climate change. And we're told that climate change will kill humans. Therefore, climate change will remove the cause of climate change. It's a self correcting problem.
Your topic sentence:
Climate change will solve itself by reducing the population disregards the fact that the climate change problem is defined from the perspective of life, not from the perspective of the planet itself.
Humans, planet wide, are going to keep reproducing and demanding a certain standard of life, living conditions, and freedom of movement.
For the foreseeable future, this will involve utilizing fossil fuels to some extent. If humans cannot slow or stop climate change, they will have to find ways to learn to adapt to it.
How does 'climate change will solve itself by reducing the population' disregard the problem from the perspective of life? Since there is life that subsists on geothermal vents in the oceans then it follows that climate change cannot extinguish life on earth. The changing climate will not impact that environment.
Besides that rather extreme example, climate change only need kill enough of the human population to restore a balance. It's not necessary to kill all humans. Human proclivity toward migration poses a greater threat for human extinction than does climate change. Humans will not migrate to achieve a balance and will not migrate only to survive. Humans will migrate to seek abundance. (That's little different than human migration from agrarian rural areas to cities.) Humans that adapt rather than migrate may well provide longer term (generational) survival of the species.
Left alone, yes.
Of course fossil fuels will be used for the foreseeable future. You need to get off this totally wrong notion that people are seeking an abrupt switch. That is impossible. The shift is gradual, necessarily, and thus it is important that we act now.
Nerm, I am not going to constantly reexplain. If you do not understand my point then that is on you.
You must realize that most human beings are looking for a way to avoid having the climate kill off portions of the population.
Before reexplaining, it is necessary to explain. The impact of changing climate has been described from the perspective of life. No one has been warning that the planet will crack and fall apart because of climate change. Climate change has always been described as a threat to life.
Yes, that has already been addressed. If we don't control migration then areas less affected by climate change will experience rapid collapse. People are already migrating to obtain abundance; today's migration is not driven by survival. Energy shortages will severely limit economic opportunities and that will drive migration.
The point is we do not need to reduce our current per capita emissions by 87 pct; we need to reduce our per capita carbon emissions to 87 pct of the level in 1800. 8 people today can only emit as much carbon as one person of 1800 if we are to return to pre-industrial levels of emissions. We can't maintain our industrial lifestyles and return to pre-industrial carbon emissions with the current population size.
Yes and no. Much is driven by failed government systems.
I give you Venezuela …. A fine example of a failed socialist government. Hot foot it to the capitalist government of perceived abundance ….
With overpopulation being the main issue with Global warming, China with Fauci’s help did more to fight it since 2020 than all the activists combined.
We're still coming off the last Ice Age and warming is to be expected. Who's to say another period of cooling won't return?
We've Known For Years Global Warming Could Lead To A New Ice Age. Why Is No One Doing Anything? (wgbh.org)
Pleistocene epoch: The last ice age | Live Science
Wishful thinking is no substitute for science.
So you really think that the small amount of warming during the current interglacial period is irreversible and able to suppress another cooling glacial period. What's the scientific consensus on that theory?
Do you not understand that we are focused on the current century and not on an event that is expected to happen in 50,000 years?
You need to drop the idea that an Ice Age is caused by cooling. Like Milankovitch when he heard the term "Ice Age" he, like many others, assumed that meant a cooling climate and therefore based his cycles so as to produce that cooling climate scenario to bring on an ice age. Being the ancient scientist that he was, he never had all the data, one major missing piece of information was the sea level rises before each Ice Age. We have many climate scientists now that take the Milankovitch Cycles as gospel and you don't dare mess with them and they make the mistaken claim that we should be cooling right now.
What actually brings on an ice age is too much warm water collecting in the seas and that warm water being transported to the arctic regions by the ocean currents.
Dude, are you unable to comprehend the idea that events outside the norm (like humans) happen?
Why did you push the next ice age out to 1-1/2 times further out in time than the normal approximately 100,000 years, unless you meant "within" the next 50,000 years.
We do not know when the next ice age will hit. My point is that we are talking a period of time that is well beyond anything that will ever make a difference to people living today.
A common guess is that it will not occur for at least 50,000 years. There is no point bickering over how correct that is. Just recognize that the next ice age is well out of our scope.
Unless the warming is due to the conditions required to bring on the next Ice Age and everything we are doing to reduce CO2 is in vain because CO2 isn't causing the warming.
Remember, that ever since the last Ice Age the planet has been warming, the sea levels have been rising as the on land ice returns to the sea, and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising as the ice has been releasing it and the permafrost also releases it. So is it CO2 that is driving the warming or the warming driving the CO2 levels? I'd say it is the latter, the former is a scientific assumption.
'Member our Archaeology teacher informing us - quite emphatically - that "climate change" occurs 'bout every 1500 years and has for hundreds of thousands of years. He even had plenty of "academia" literature for substantiation.
Wonder why today's "climate change" wizards haven't brought any of that up?
Climate scientists are routinely talking about the natural changes in the climate on our planet. They incorporate same into their models and into their conclusions.
I do not see these folks attempting to hide this.
The concern is that the changes we are seeing now are not explained by the normal changes on the planet. They are abrupt and sharp and coincide with the growth of the industrial age (especially its maturity).
I have to ask given your post. Are you suggesting that AGW and climate science in general is attempting to perpetrate a worldwide hoax?
Nope - not what I'm saying. I am saying that they are "ignoring" precedence and not even giving consideration to what has "naturally" occurred over the millenia regarding constant climate change.
This is not a "Oh my Gawd - we're gonna die" scenario nor situation. However, because we are "so damn smart", we can quit arguing and start repairing - easy peasy.
Who is the 'they' then?
I know that there are talking heads out there (Gore is the poster child for this) of making half-baked claims. Of course take talking heads with a grain of salt.
But Climate scientists are an entirely different matter. These folks are absolutely NOT ignoring natural changes. The trends (and underlying causes) are absolutely factored into their models.
Who is the "they" - C'mon Tig - that was back in 1971 in my Arch/Anthro classes and, no, I didn't keep those notes.
Today's "Climate Scientists" are nothing more that a weatherman with a Master's/PhD on guestimation - and, IF you read their dire warnings, we should have been dead right after the Industrial Revolution. They (the Climate Scientists) are the largest "The Sky is Falling" predictors of unfounded occurrences because - well, believe it or not, Mother Nature ain't gonna cooperate and she will do it her way.
No, we are not helping matters much (wanna buy an EV with a $15,000 battery, annual battery upkeep of 'bout $3,000, tires/weight distribution that is ten-times the weight ratio distribution in carbon emissions than standard vehicles, etc.??)
No, it ain't gonna be easy - but, the "sky ain't falling" - yet and won't during our lifetimes.
I clearly am not asking about fellow students when you were in school.
Okay, no point continuing.
those that have a relatively limited futures making decisions for those that will live long beyond them, will always be problematic.
What we are witnessing actually could be normal, at some point the seas will rise enough to transport larger and larger amounts of warm water into the arctic regions causing a cascading effect on Greenland and the Antarctic with ice sheets melting faster and more of the glaciers floating in higher and higher water causing a rush (in glacial terms) into the seas.
Scientists are stuck on CO2 as a greenhouse gas and human activity as the cause, so there is no need for them to look elsewhere. I just don't see CO2 as a greenhouse gas, its more akin to oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere and was only .03% 200 years ago and is now .04% how does that .01% cause what is happening.
Do you think they form their conclusions based on data or feelings? Is the chart @10.1, for example, made up nonsense ... lies?
You seem to think that CO2 must be predominant in the atmosphere to have an effect. That is apparently your gut feel, and I can appreciate why someone would feel as you do. But consider that we have plenty of examples of very tiny things causing tremendous damage. A virus, for example, is very tiny compared to all the molecules in a human body yet it can disrupt the system to the point where the body itself could die. The safe amount of arsenic in water (for human consumption) is 10ppb (not ppm, ppb : billion). The safe level is extremely tiny and the dangerous level is also extremely tiny.
Prior to the industrial age our CO2 was about 275 ppm. We are, as you note, over 400 ppm. And this occurred as a spike. Yes both are very tiny fractions of all the molecules in the atmosphere but the CO2 level has risen substantially over the last century+. Scientists have determined (formally, based on deep analysis and data) that anything past 350 ppm is damaging and that a safe level really is closer to 275 ppm. We are heading in the wrong direction and are already past a tolerable level.
"Feelings", no, assumptions, yes. Milankovitch heard the term "Ice Age" and immediately assumed that meant a colder climate and based his entire theory on producing a scenario to get a colder climate for the northern hemisphere and, of course, he was wrong. But it seems that climate scientists took his theory as gospel, another assumption, claiming that we shouldn't be warming right now. Another assumption is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, where did this come from? As I recall, it came from the finding that Venus has a thick CO2 layer from the surface out 30 km and the hellish climate on the surface was again assumed to be because of this layer and that again is wrong. The hellish climate on Venus created the CO2 layer last.
Is the chart @10.1 , for example, made up nonsense ... lies?
No it is pretty accurate the closer to the present and a little fuzzy back 800,000 years, but that is understandable. Other than the human caused spike, the timeline rise in the CO2 level shows us nearing an ice age.
Yeah but it’s a dry heat ……
Just maybe, overpopulation might ought to be looked into
that'll go over real big with the be fruitful and multiply, forced birth crowd...
They are a big part of the problem
most successful problem solvers fix the biggest part of the problem first.
very true
Do you have a proposal in mind?
Overpopulation is clearly a profound problem ... but what do we do to address it?
Yes I have several ideas. Most will be controversial, I will try and put some of them together.
Might take some time, but I have been thinking about it
if you can make a list, you can add a few sentences and publish an article.
chuckle
That is what I am expecting.
Cheech and Chong suggested whacking his PeePee.
Lost power due to a major storm this morning.
Drove into town and spent the day in the library.
Read a book, alphabetized books and DVDs, talked to actual flesh and blood people and basically had an amazing time doing library work while the head librarian caught up with paperwork and played video games. He said I was welcome to do his job anytime.
Seems getting away from the computer for a day is a good thing.
Glad to see you all had fun with my favorite topic in my absence.
you should have seen those the size of thunder boomers drifting out towards you from this side...
Watching that massive wall cloud bearing down on me was a thrill.
Being gone all day gave me the chance to bug-bomb the recent gnat invasion that has been driving me to distraction. The house smells toxic but the gnats are DOA.
I'm happy to know from some of our climate experts that there is no climate crisis. I'm going to relay that to the insurance companies that have pulled out of Florida because of the severity of the hurricanes that have been hitting Florida.
We have an insurance crisis here and the latest two companies to pull out of the Florida market are Farmers and this morning AAA announced they will not write new home/auto policies and will not renew current policies.
There are no weather problems if your head is buried up your ass.
Florida has the highest home insurance and auto rates in the country and the highest inflation rate, but our politicians are concentrating their ineptness on the ''culture wars''.
Other than one of Ron DeBatboy's daily shit storms.
Ive been saying that for years.
I cannot vote for the GTOP because they don't actually have a plan.
Climate change isn't real, insurance companies definitely don't follow the science or the dollar.
Ahhhh, just record setting temps over and over (from last year, and those temps were records over rising temps for decades), but not to worry, not human caused according to the GOP.
In Las Cruces - Temp 113, humidity 12% yesterday - projected temp 109, humidity 20% today, 110/18% tomorrow, 109/22% Thurs and only 106/20% Friday.
And the pools are open and White Sands Missile Range still has no A/C.
Normal summer weather - what's the problem?
Yep. it's normal summer weather. Every year a "heat dome" forms over the South or Southwest. Some years it meanders a bit which allows the summer monsoon flow to start up, which happened last summer. This year the hot and dry high pressure area has been fairly stationary and persistent...there are no weather systems to move it out of the way. 1936 was very hot also.