"This trap of cynicism and despair" and "giving up" are in fact completely rational responses to the very truth you straightforwardly lay out in the earlier part of the post. I never understood critiques of "doomerism" when or even the idea that doomerism is a thing given the reality in front of us. On an individual level we have one tiny insignificant life and I don't begrudge anyone who understands these things doing whatever they want with that life. If you want to argue against that then please do but you don't even try in this piece you simply say there's a "moral obligation" not to give up. To whom or what? Derived from what?
I take it you have spent exactly zero time looking into how NOAA adjusts the raw temperature data or the machinations it took for Michael Mann arrived at his Hockey Stick chart. You really should take the time to do so, you might find yourself a little embarrassed over this post.
In the meantime, if temps are rising dramatically and all the heatwaves are unprecedented, can you tell me why only 2 states have posted record highs in 2000's?
"The deadly heat wave set or tied 359 daily high-temperature records over the last week, along with 709 records for the warmest overnight low temperature, according to NOAA's National Center for Environmental Information."
Daily highs and daily lows are set all the time, this is nothing new. I specifically asked about the record highs for each state... if temperatures are actually higher than they've ever been then how come the states aren't setting new records.
"Warmest overnight low temperature"? Why is that a problem?
a rising minimum and maximum daily temperature would indicate the entire baseline shifting hotter, which is bad for ecosystems and bad for people. The median is increasing. Extremes are more extreme.
But we aren't making new high temps, just higher lows. And this is undoubtedly due to the Urban Heat Island effect, which NOAA criminally ignores. A large number of temperature stations are located in urban areas... over time these areas have gotten larger and all the concrete, pavement and added heat from cars and machinery cause these areas to retain more heat, hence they stay hotter than suburban areas during the night. Cities and airports are heat syncs. To make matters worse, NOAA then "homogenizes" these tainted temps with the more realistic rural temps, making all of their data trash.
Seriously, if you haven't looked into how NOAA creates their data (which every other climate organization like NASA and HADCrut use to create their own datasets) then you're being willfully ignorant and allowing yourself to be manipulated.
First of all, single day temps are meaningless when analyzing trends over time.
Second, "Daily highs and daily lows are set all the time," is what you said in the same paragraph as "states aren't setting new records." It doesn't matter which statement is true, they're mutually exclusive. When making an argument, try not to contradict yourself in the same paragraph. But again, the point is moot because single point data is meaningless in a sea of trend analyses.
Of course not, climate change has been occurring naturally for as long as Earth has had an atmosphere. The fact that the climate changes is not evidence that it's being caused by man.
Our current warming trend started when the Little Ice age ended in the mid 1700's. Man most certainly had no part in that so to point to rising temps today and say "Oh my god, it's getting warmer, it will undoubtedly have catastrophic consequences and we're obviously to blame" is moronic. There's nothing going on now that hasn't happened before.
entirely untrue- natural climate shifts due to Milankociv cycles occur over geologic timescales- tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The changes we've seen over the last 200 years in terms of CO2ppm and average temperature are unprecedented in their speed. You're talking out your ass.
You obviously don't know the meaning of the word unprecedented. Temps rose over 10 degrees Celsius coming out of the last glacial period in just a few hundred years and man had absolutely nothing to do with it. Sea level was 400' lower because glaciers a mile thick were parked over Chicago and New York. The notion that a change of a degree Celsius over 200 years is unprecedented is so stupid I can't believe you said it.
Most people are unaware that NOAA recognized that the data from the vast majority of weather stations around the world were terrible, they give tainted data so in 2004 they established the USCRN which is a network of weather stations with state of the art equipment that measures temps accurately. Since that network was established there has been zero warming with temps bouncing around the zero anomaly level. Where is this unprecedented warmth? It exists only in the minds of the true believers.
You have no idea what you're talking about lmao. You can plainly see a shift from negative temperature anomaly AVERAGES to positive, well beyond any effect from the Little Ice Age. What you describe as "bouncing around zero" is a pretty clear upwardly mobile trend. And all this about "tainted data" is nonsense lol. The global community of actual climate scientists think you're full of shit.
"According to IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, in the last 170 years, humans have caused the global temperature to increase to the highest level in the last 2,000 years. The current multi-century period is the warmest in the past 100,000 years.[3] The temperature in the years 2011-2020 was 1.09°C higher than in 1859-1890. The temperature on land rose by 1.59°C while over the ocean it rose only by 0.88°C.[3]: SPM-5 "
You've trotted out talking points from fossil fuel companies and lobbyists, because they know contrarians with poor data science skills will shill for them.
"The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[2] The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 WG1) of 2013 examined temperature variations during the last two millennia, and concluded that for average annual Northern Hemisphere temperatures, "the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)".[18]"
Question - What do you call a climatologist if it's realized manmade global warming isn't a problem?
Answer - Unemployed.
I gave you a link to the best dataset in the world and it's clearly not doing anything alarming. I told you how NOAA's data is tainted and you respond with an appeal to authority and wikipedia - JFC.
Do better. And I'm done responding to you until you do.
"This trap of cynicism and despair" and "giving up" are in fact completely rational responses to the very truth you straightforwardly lay out in the earlier part of the post. I never understood critiques of "doomerism" when or even the idea that doomerism is a thing given the reality in front of us. On an individual level we have one tiny insignificant life and I don't begrudge anyone who understands these things doing whatever they want with that life. If you want to argue against that then please do but you don't even try in this piece you simply say there's a "moral obligation" not to give up. To whom or what? Derived from what?
I take it you have spent exactly zero time looking into how NOAA adjusts the raw temperature data or the machinations it took for Michael Mann arrived at his Hockey Stick chart. You really should take the time to do so, you might find yourself a little embarrassed over this post.
In the meantime, if temps are rising dramatically and all the heatwaves are unprecedented, can you tell me why only 2 states have posted record highs in 2000's?
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/weather/record-highest-temperatures-by-state
"The deadly heat wave set or tied 359 daily high-temperature records over the last week, along with 709 records for the warmest overnight low temperature, according to NOAA's National Center for Environmental Information."
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/24/heat-wave-temperature-records
Daily highs and daily lows are set all the time, this is nothing new. I specifically asked about the record highs for each state... if temperatures are actually higher than they've ever been then how come the states aren't setting new records.
"Warmest overnight low temperature"? Why is that a problem?
a rising minimum and maximum daily temperature would indicate the entire baseline shifting hotter, which is bad for ecosystems and bad for people. The median is increasing. Extremes are more extreme.
But we aren't making new high temps, just higher lows. And this is undoubtedly due to the Urban Heat Island effect, which NOAA criminally ignores. A large number of temperature stations are located in urban areas... over time these areas have gotten larger and all the concrete, pavement and added heat from cars and machinery cause these areas to retain more heat, hence they stay hotter than suburban areas during the night. Cities and airports are heat syncs. To make matters worse, NOAA then "homogenizes" these tainted temps with the more realistic rural temps, making all of their data trash.
Seriously, if you haven't looked into how NOAA creates their data (which every other climate organization like NASA and HADCrut use to create their own datasets) then you're being willfully ignorant and allowing yourself to be manipulated.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/96-of-u-s-climate-data-is-corrupted-new-study/
First of all, single day temps are meaningless when analyzing trends over time.
Second, "Daily highs and daily lows are set all the time," is what you said in the same paragraph as "states aren't setting new records." It doesn't matter which statement is true, they're mutually exclusive. When making an argument, try not to contradict yourself in the same paragraph. But again, the point is moot because single point data is meaningless in a sea of trend analyses.
are you trying to say climate change isn't happening, basically?
Of course not, climate change has been occurring naturally for as long as Earth has had an atmosphere. The fact that the climate changes is not evidence that it's being caused by man.
Our current warming trend started when the Little Ice age ended in the mid 1700's. Man most certainly had no part in that so to point to rising temps today and say "Oh my god, it's getting warmer, it will undoubtedly have catastrophic consequences and we're obviously to blame" is moronic. There's nothing going on now that hasn't happened before.
entirely untrue- natural climate shifts due to Milankociv cycles occur over geologic timescales- tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The changes we've seen over the last 200 years in terms of CO2ppm and average temperature are unprecedented in their speed. You're talking out your ass.
You obviously don't know the meaning of the word unprecedented. Temps rose over 10 degrees Celsius coming out of the last glacial period in just a few hundred years and man had absolutely nothing to do with it. Sea level was 400' lower because glaciers a mile thick were parked over Chicago and New York. The notion that a change of a degree Celsius over 200 years is unprecedented is so stupid I can't believe you said it.
Most people are unaware that NOAA recognized that the data from the vast majority of weather stations around the world were terrible, they give tainted data so in 2004 they established the USCRN which is a network of weather stations with state of the art equipment that measures temps accurately. Since that network was established there has been zero warming with temps bouncing around the zero anomaly level. Where is this unprecedented warmth? It exists only in the minds of the true believers.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/6/6
You have no idea what you're talking about lmao. You can plainly see a shift from negative temperature anomaly AVERAGES to positive, well beyond any effect from the Little Ice Age. What you describe as "bouncing around zero" is a pretty clear upwardly mobile trend. And all this about "tainted data" is nonsense lol. The global community of actual climate scientists think you're full of shit.
"According to IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, in the last 170 years, humans have caused the global temperature to increase to the highest level in the last 2,000 years. The current multi-century period is the warmest in the past 100,000 years.[3] The temperature in the years 2011-2020 was 1.09°C higher than in 1859-1890. The temperature on land rose by 1.59°C while over the ocean it rose only by 0.88°C.[3]: SPM-5 "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_last_2,000_years
You've trotted out talking points from fossil fuel companies and lobbyists, because they know contrarians with poor data science skills will shill for them.
Pseudoscience sucks
"The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[2] The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 WG1) of 2013 examined temperature variations during the last two millennia, and concluded that for average annual Northern Hemisphere temperatures, "the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)".[18]"
Question - What do you call a climatologist if it's realized manmade global warming isn't a problem?
Answer - Unemployed.
I gave you a link to the best dataset in the world and it's clearly not doing anything alarming. I told you how NOAA's data is tainted and you respond with an appeal to authority and wikipedia - JFC.
Do better. And I'm done responding to you until you do.
bob needs to take a walk outside in one of these heatwaves and rethink his arguments ..