Posted on 07/28/2018 8:25:19 AM PDT by rktman
In the town of Sodankyla, Finland, the thermometer on July 17 registered a record-breaking 90 degrees, a remarkable figure given that Sodankyla is 59 miles north of the Arctic Circle, in a region known for winter snowmobiling and an abundance of reindeer.
This is a hot, strange and dangerous summer across the planet.
Greece is in mourning after scorching heat and high winds fueled wildfires that have killed more than 80 people. Japan recorded its highest temperature in history, 106 degrees, in a heat wave that killed 65 people in a week and hospitalized 22,000, shortly after catastrophic flooding killed 200.
Ouargla, Algeria, hit 124 degrees on July 5, a likely record for the continent of Africa. And the 109-degree reading in Quriyat, Oman, on June 28 amazed meteorologists because that wasnt the days high temperature. That was the low . It was the hottest low temperature ever recorded on Earth.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You’d think those ‘cleaner fish’ could keep the coral clean?
Yes, they would be admired for their personal commitment and as an example to others on truly sacrificing for the cause. Removing their footprints of pollution, one small step at a time, will really add up if they can get a friend who has a friend who has a friend ... etc to do the same. Only then will the ignorant and unwashed be convinced of AGW because such thoughtful and caring people have sacrificed themselves for the planet.
Another angle to use is the theory of evolution. Since all has evolved, why should I worry. If we destroy the planet through AGW, every species will return through evolution and the cycle can repeat itself. So relax, have a good time cruising etc while we are here, things will return in millions of years.
Honestly, it's probably a mixture of both.
I understand that you're trying to sound "reasonable", possibly with the goal of being able to "negotiate" or "work with" climate change advocates. Unfortunately, that hope is doomed to failure, because it's based on false premises. For example:
1. Reductio ad absurdum - whatever "mixture" the human component of any change might be, it's so statistically small that it's irrelevant. "Science" is irrelevant - their arguments are not based in science (only junk science-the true scientific method is never employed by advocates) This premise is basically a joke.
2. Climate change is NOT the real issue (basic Alinsky - with the left, the issue is never the issue). The real issue is setting up a global mechanism for massive wealth redistribution and control, of wealth, resources and people.
So we must assume that these arsonists starting some of these fires are doing it because of Global Warming ?
Yes, and I've stated this exact point many times. I just believe conservatives have always looked foolish with their denials that climate change occurs. We really need to move the talking points to: "Climate change? So what? I'm not going to live in the Stone Age over it and we're not going to transfer a trillion dollars to Africa over it either."
As long as the Left's only "solution" to climate change involve hobbling the U.S. economy while giving China and India a pass combined with buying "carbon credits" from poor African nations for trillions of dollars, there's nothing to negotiate or find any middle ground over.
This doesn't mean the conservatives should continue to deny there is any climate change taking place. Doing so has always made our side look foolish while giving liberals the "good guy" hat over stewardship of the environment. Accepting that climate change is real will free us up to hammer the left's horrible "solutions" for fixing it.
The relative size is irrelevant since the sun is 93 million miles away. The proper comparison is that the sun deposits 200 times more energy on the planet on average than manmade CO2 sends back to the planet. A 200 to 1 ratio should make it obvious enough that added CO2 doesn't matter.
Then use the satellite readings instead.
That's only one anecdote. But it raises the point that all the Post article has is a dozen or so anecdotes which cover a tiny fraction of the earth.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
And record temperatures follow. Or something.
The only satellite before 1957, of course, was the moon.
Yes distance matters too, but size matters as well. If sun was only 1000 times bigger than earth, we would have similar climate as Pluto has now.
" On 13 September 2012 the World Meteorological Organisation disqualified the record for the highest recorded temperature, exactly 90 years after it had been established at El Azizia, Libya, with a measurement of 58°C. The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7°C (134°F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.
***
As a result of an investigation in 2012, the WMO concluded that the El Azizia record measurement could be inaccurate by as much as 7°C due to a combination of factors including the asphalt-like surface over which the measurement was taken, which is not a fair representation of the native desert soil.
IOW the WMO "corrected" a 1922 record because of "asphalt-like surface over which the measurement was taken".
Probable site of "New Record for Africa" weather station
http://www.surfacestations.org/
This site in Marysville, CA has been around for about the same amount of time, but has been encroached upon by growth in a most serious way by micro-site effects.
Total bunk...
We truly are doomed!
And what model do you use? Certainly not the ideal gas law. Maybe a form of it but an overly simplistic version of it that will introduce huge amounts of error.
And what as about temperature and matter concentration gradients laterally and via altitude. How do you model that? And ground formations like mountains and surface water.
Then there is the sun, the proximity of the earth to the sun, gravity, internal processes inside the earth. And what about plants that consume co2?
It is a massive feed back and feed forward system with hundreds of valuables and nonlinear equations describing it but only approximately. Crudely.
No, modeling the earths climate is massively complex and beyond our capabilities.
I recall from documentaries from 40 years ago that Siberia has a short summer (like 2 weeks) where the temperatures get into the 90s (when the place is below freezing and even zero most of the rest of the time) Played hell with the Trans-Siberian Railroad, with the rails expanding and destroying sections of track endemically.
So leftards trot out their incomplete ‘fact’s’ which have been true for a thousand years, and force feed it to the ignorant mush brains who listen to and believe their lies.
Its like the record’ high temperatures taken almost always from cities where there now is record amounts of heat accumulating asphalt and concrete which actually accounts for local aberrations.
Its called Cherry Picking data and is a form of lying when its presented by omission as a generality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.