presidential closer to red but i would say the state as a whole remains purple. cities are obviously blue and rural red. since i finished college we've had four dem govs and two repub govs. before parson (greitens temp) we had nixon (dem) from 2009-2017.
Climate change skeptics poll
- Thread starter TMFT
- Start date
Monday was the hottest day in recorded human history. Then Tuesday came and broke the record. Happy Wednesday!
Loading…
www.cnn.com
First: wake up and admit that climate change is real, then 2nd: take actions to lessen global CO2 emissions
When Obama lists his oceanfront digs.
If I pay more taxes it will make the environment gooder.
My understanding is that obtaining natural gas from fracking has a much lower carbon footprint than oil and (especially) coal. It is a decent transitional technology, but more investment in nuclear would be far wiser, IMO
The thermometer is something like 200 years old? Recorded human history began about 5000 years ago.
The article says since they began recording. The only year I saw referenced in the article was 1884.
Congratulations, Mr. Obvious. "Recorded human history" with respect to temperature measurements indeed means the period of time in which humans have recorded temperature.
Guillaume Amontons had a decent gas themometer in the late 1600s and IIRC Ben Franklin had weather data including temperature logged for Philadelphia by the mid-1700s. But a database comprehensive enough to ascertain a mean global temperature probably hasn't existed for more than 100 years.
That said, would it concern you if the 100 hottest days of the past 100 years all occurred within the past 10 years?
Guillaume Amontons had a decent gas themometer in the late 1600s and IIRC Ben Franklin had weather data including temperature logged for Philadelphia by the mid-1700s. But a database comprehensive enough to ascertain a mean global temperature probably hasn't existed for more than 100 years.
That said, would it concern you if the 100 hottest days of the past 100 years all occurred within the past 10 years?
Since most people won't click links your post was hyperbolic.
No it wouldn't concern me. In the past 10 to 15 years this world is suffering from information overload. All we would know is that the hottest days were in the last 100 years. Doesn't mean hottest ever in human history.
No, it would mean that the hottest 100 days within the past 100 years all occurred just in the last 10 years. It suggests a trend, don't you think?
Yes, it indeed doesn't mean those days were the hottest days ever in human history, which is great, since I didn't say that they were. I said that they were the hottest days in recorded human history, meaning (to everyone with a cranium, except, I guess, you) the period of time in human history in which records have been kept for such things.
Not necessarily. It would depend on the distribution of the days over the 3650 days +2 or 3 for leap years. If it was a random distribution I don't see how a trend could be established. If they all fell within the same time frame then I could see a trend. 10 years is a pretty short period of time.
Ah yes, insult my intelligence. Recorded human history implies the time when humans began writing things down. If you were to be accurate you could have said, 100 hottest days since temperatures have been recorded.
If the 90+ wet bulb days start happening relatively frequently in historically inhabited areas then we can be somewhat confident it’s on the unprecedented side because humans wouldn’t have been able to survive very long in those places without air conditioning.
Fair enough. I should have just quoted the scientific report: "hottest days in human recordkeeping "
Monday may have set a global record for the hottest day ever. Tuesday broke it - WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale
The entire planet sweltered for the two unofficial hottest days in human recordkeeping Monday and Tuesday, according to University of Maine scientists at the Climate<a class="excerpt-read-more"...
wsvn.com
I know I'm being picky. Just part of the fun. I guess.Fair enough. I should have just quoted the scientific report: "hottest days in human recordkeeping "
Monday may have set a global record for the hottest day ever. Tuesday broke it - WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale
The entire planet sweltered for the two unofficial hottest days in human recordkeeping Monday and Tuesday, according to University of Maine scientists at the Climate<a class="excerpt-read-more"...
I'm not in complete denial. I'm just not bought in to it being human driven. I'm really more of a conservationist when it comes to environment.
But it's never like you to take advantage of some obfuscation, until you get called out on it of course.Fair enough. I should have just quoted the scientific report: "hottest days in human recordkeeping "
Monday may have set a global record for the hottest day ever. Tuesday broke it - WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale
The entire planet sweltered for the two unofficial hottest days in human recordkeeping Monday and Tuesday, according to University of Maine scientists at the Climate<a class="excerpt-read-more"...
We've let you all play your games, but those days are OVER. Consider yourself and your team on notice. YOu bring nothing to the advancement of society.
It all comes down to those self anointed hypochondriac ones that call out the naturally conservative ones in debate. They done picked the wrong fight.
Sulfur dioxide & acid rain
CFCs & ozone
Leaded gas & lead levels in children
All three examples of scientists raising issues that the data took them to of anthropogenic caused problems that were derided as doom-and-gloom predictions that have been born out as right.
So I wouldn’t write off anthropogenic influenced climate change just yet. Particularly when they can demonstrate changes in air composition using ice core samples.
You know what I love about this debate? Conservative donors know that the climate alarmists are right, but they don't care because admitting they are right costs them money. Conservative politicians know that they are right, but they don't care, because they want money from the donors. That all makes sense.
But conservative voters? What are they getting out of it? Because they sound like they actually think the whole climate change thing is a scam, and the only thing they are going to get out of it is a lower standard of living.
Edit: To be clear, I don't love that the voters are getting f*cked. What I love is the possibility that one wing of the political spectrum could convince its own followers to whole-heartedly accept something that its leaders genuinely know is false. Fascinating.
Isn't that nature of consolidating power?
Its not like the republicans have that market cornered. Both parties will lie to their constituents in order to do it.
Scientists always think they can arrive at a scientific explanation for literally everything because they’re a bunch of GD nerds.
Maybe just admit you don’t know like the rest of us? 100 whole years? Tiniest of tiny sample size.
Climate change is probably real. Until we have a president that can wipe his own ass it doesn’t matter. If the CO2 hypothesis are real, then better get on the phone with India and China. Stop bothering NYC pizzerias… the pizza is delicious either way so F it.
Third day in a row now the earth has achieved its hottest average temperature (since we’ve been keeping records, of course).Fair enough. I should have just quoted the scientific report: "hottest days in human recordkeeping "
Monday may have set a global record for the hottest day ever. Tuesday broke it - WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale
The entire planet sweltered for the two unofficial hottest days in human recordkeeping Monday and Tuesday, according to University of Maine scientists at the Climate<a class="excerpt-read-more"...
Earth hit an unofficial record high temperature this week – and stayed there
Earth’s average temperature on Wednesday remained at an unofficial record high set the day before, the latest grim milestone in a week that has seen a series of climate-change-driven extremes. The average global temperature was 17.18 Celsius (62.9 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the...
I'm sure the effects of the current El Nino event has nothing to do with it. The last one was 2016 which was the hottest year on record at that time.
Not sure what you're getting at. It was just the most recent. There have been plenty of them.
My point is that unless every El Niño year is among the hottest on record then it may not be the El Niño effect and is instead a red herring point you’re making.
In fact, if you look at the hottest 10 years on record they’re all gonna be within the last 15 years and every succeeding year will be in the top 10. The El Niño years may be especially warm, but the trend is pretty clear.
Unless you can get China and India on board you're wasting your time here... Their airborne emissions and water pollutants numbers literally reduce any inroads we make at our end to mear virtue signaling...
Since China owns our current Administration and Big business loves India don't expect either country to make any significant changes in time to make any major difference...
My tip: Invest in small two person electric fans...😉😎
Since China owns our current Administration and Big business loves India don't expect either country to make any significant changes in time to make any major difference...
My tip: Invest in small two person electric fans...😉😎
The earth has warmed and cooled since it was formed. Those periods have lasted hundreds of years to thousands. I think it is smart to be concerned with what type of impact human interaction has on the environment. The problem is that the environmental movement is led by people who act like lunatics.
Just about every in-depth article on this phenomenon mentions the El Nino PROMINENTLY. The combination of the upward trend from climate change and the establishment of an El Nino is clearly important. Otherwise the 2016 records would have been broken in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022... They were not, though those years all rank in the top 10 of hot years in the past 100+ years.
I should also mention that we have pretty strong evidence of global temperatures, back long before people had invented thermometers, through tree rings, ice cores, sediment deposits, etc.
Recent heating isn't just an anomaly for the past few hundred years, it's likely an anomaly over tens of thousands of years, though with less certainty in its magnitude than you can get with precise temperature readings.
It's indisputable that the earth is getting hotter. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. The only thing left for debate is whether this is primarily the result of CO2 emissions or part of a natural, cyclical climatic occurrence.
Plenty of scientists insist it's the former. Maybe they're wrong. But what if they're right? Seems we should be erring on the side of caution and expeditiously transitioning to clean energy.
Someone else made a good point, though. CO2 reduction (and/or the further development and use of technology that captures CO2) requires the buy-in of two of the world's leading CO2 emitters - - India and China. It will require real leadership to get those two at the table with a verifiable commitment to reducing CO2 emissions and/or facilitating the rapid development and expansion of carbon-capture plants. Sadly, I don't believe that leadership is currently in place. We've got to keep trying, though, and this should be an elections issue.
A warming planet and rising sea levels will have a sociological and economic impact on most of the world, including the US. Entire nations, like the Maldives for example, may have populations of climate refugees. Climate migration in the next few decades is likely in the US as well. We can't keep kicking the can down the road on this, at least not if we give a shit about our kids and grandkids.
The natural cycles are real, but the rate of change in a natural cycle (absent a cataclysmic event such as an asteroid impact or supervolcano eruption) is nothing like the rate of change that we have been seeing over the past 100 years.
You're preaching to the choir. I believe we're causing the temperature increase. My point was that you'd think even the skeptics would consider it prudent to dramatically reduce or capture CO2 emissions.
NBC meteorologist cites controversial UN study claiming extreme heat will make US south unlivable for humans
An NBC meteorologist claimed the idea that extreme heat could make some southern states unlivable for humans might be 'closer' than people think.
Why is there migration from blue run northern states to red run southern states?
Similar threads
